The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Lindsay DeClou, Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario Julie Peters, and Peggy Sattler, Academica Group Inc.

Published by

The Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario

1 Yonge Street, Suite 2402 Toronto, ON Canada, M5E 1E5

Phone: (416) 212-3893 Fax: (416) 212-3899 Web: www.heqco.ca E-mail: [email protected]

Cite this publication in the following format:

DeClou, L., Sattler, P., and Peters, J. (2013). The University of Waterloo and Work- Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.

The opinions expressed in this research document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or official polices of the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario or other agencies or organizations that may have provided support, financial or otherwise, for this project.

© Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2013

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Contents Contents ...... 3 Executive Summary ...... 4 1 – Introduction ...... 7 2 – Survey Methodology ...... 12 3 – Demographic Profile ...... 17 4 – Participation in WIL ...... 20 5 – Challenges Associated with WIL ...... 69 6 – Benefits of WIL ...... 77 7 – University of Waterloo Relative to Other Participating Universities ...... 104 8 – Summary of Findings ...... 125 References ...... 128 A separate appendix is available in English only. Visit heqco.ca for more information.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 3

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Executive Summary

This report was requested and partially funded by the University of Waterloo’s Centre for the Advancement of Co-operative Education (WATCACE), along with funding from the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. It presents a customized analysis of findings from three surveys, undertaken in spring 2011 and spring 2012, to gather perspectives from graduating college and university students, postsecondary faculty, and Ontario employers on work-integrated learning (WIL) within a postsecondary program of study. The three surveys were funded by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) and conducted by Academica Group Inc., in partnership with the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU), the Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation (MEDI), as well as 14 Ontario postsecondary institutions and a variety of student associations and other stakeholders. The surveys were designed to gain a better understanding of student, faculty, and employer experiences with WIL, including motivations and barriers to participation, and perceptions of challenges and benefits. The results presented in this report provide insights into the attitudes and opinions of students and faculty from the University of Waterloo and the Ontario employers most likely to hire University of Waterloo graduates.

Key Findings

Among all students pursuing different kinds of work-integrated learning (WIL), co-op students were the most satisfied with their WIL experiences.  Co-op students were slightly more satisfied with their overall university experience than students who participated in other types of WIL programs, and were significantly more satisfied than students who did not participate in any type of WIL.  Co-op students were also more satisfied with their co-op experiences than students who participated in other types of WIL.

Most students would choose WIL if they had to start over.  Over half of graduating students who did not participate in WIL would choose a program with a WIL component if given the option to start over again.  Many students who said they would start over in a WIL program were motivated by employment outcomes.  There were no clear or overarching reasons why students chose not to participate in a WIL program.

Faculty participation in WIL varies by socio-demographic and background characteristics.  Faculty who taught a course with WIL were more likely to be older and male.  Those who taught in a program with WIL were also more likely to be male and to hold a full-time position.  The degree to which faculty integrated student learning with real-world experiences significantly differed by program group and especially according to their own non-academic work experience. For example, faculty with other employment experience related to their program area were often more likely to report integrating student learning with real-world experiences.

Faculty backgrounds affect perceptions of the purposes of postsecondary education (PSE) and WIL.  All faculty placed considerable importance on the development of students’ critical thinking and analytic skills as a primary purpose of PSE. However, there were several significant differences in faculty perceptions of the purposes of PSE and the benefits associated with WIL by socio- demographic characteristics such as gender and employment status.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 4

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

 Faculty who participated in WIL when they were students and those who taught a course with WIL were more likely to support increasing the availability of WIL opportunities in PSE.

A lack of suitable work prevents interested employers from offering WIL.  Most employers who have stopped offering or do not offer WIL have done so because of a lack of suitable work opportunities. Staffing issues, including the required time to recruit, train, and supervise students, were also shown to impact employers’ decisions not to offer WIL.  Employers recommended financial incentives and better scheduling student placements to meet business cycle needs as a means of facilitating greater employer participation in WIL.

Student challenges associated with WIL differ by type of WIL.  The top rated challenges experienced by co-op students during their work terms were not having enough work assigned, being bored at work, and not having a strong enough link between the skills learned in school and workplace assignments.  Students who participated in other types of WIL indicated that being underprepared, not being able to find suitable placements, and not being paid were the most frequent challenges they experienced.

Ensuring quality placements was a challenge for faculty.  The most common challenges faced by faculty were ensuring the quantity and quality of placements for students.  Faculty who taught a course with WIL also reported challenges managing WIL within large classes.

Many employers faced no challenges with WIL.  Over one-half of co-op employers did not experience any challenges associated with providing WIL experiences for students, while slightly more than one-third of employers involved with other types of WIL reported not facing any challenges.

Co-op students tend to have better personal and professional outcomes.  Co-op students were significantly more likely than students who participated in other types of WIL to agree that their WIL experiences professionally and personally benefited them.  Depending on the type and level of WIL involvement, significant differences were observed in the amount of debt students indicated they would graduate with. Because most of their placements were paid, co-op students were more likely to graduate with less debt than students with no WIL participation and those who participated in other types of WIL.

Faculty agreed that students, faculty, and the institution benefit from WIL participation.  Faculty agreed that student benefits associated with WIL include the opportunity to develop contacts and networks for future employment, and better understand work realities and expectations.  Faculty with outside work experience and those who taught a course with WIL tended to have better perceptions of the student benefits associated with WIL participation.  The majority of faculty at both colleges and universities tended to personally view WIL as valuable and believe that WIL strengthens links between the institution and the business community.

Employers can use WIL to their benefit.  Employers’ most prominent reasons for providing WIL were prescreening potential hires, developing industry/profession workforce skills, and bringing in specific skills and talent.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 5

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

 Co-op employers were more likely than other WIL employers to report hiring WIL students who had done placements in their workplace following the students’ graduation from university.

Co-op students graduating from the University of Waterloo tend to perceive themselves as having better outcomes than co-op students at other participating universities.  Co-op students graduating from the University of Waterloo were more likely than their counterparts at other participating universities to report benefiting both academically and professionally from their WIL participation.  University of Waterloo co-op students expect to graduate with lower median debt than their counterparts at other participating universities.  Students graduating from co-op programs at the University of Waterloo have higher levels of satisfaction with their co-op experience than similar students at other participating universities.

University of Waterloo faculty tended to face less challenges when implementing WIL.  Faculty at the University of Waterloo were, on average, less likely to report facing challenges associated with implementing WIL, and this was especially true for faculty who taught in a program with a WIL component.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 6

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

1 – Introduction

Background

In February 2012, Don Drummond released the final report of his Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services. Included in the long list of recommendations was one which stated that postsecondary institutions “need to devote more resources to experiential learning such as internships.”

The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) subsequently released a discussion paper (Strengthening Ontario’s Centres of Creativity, Innovation and Knowledge) that included five policy priorities, including one involving “entrepreneurial and experiential learning.” In response to the subsequent round of public consultations, each of the major postsecondary stakeholders in Ontario provided its own recommendations concerning work-integrated learning (WIL):

 Colleges Ontario: 25 per cent of clinical-placement hours in existing college programs should be replaced by simulation  Council of Ontario Universities (COU): Universities will continue to expand experiential and entrepreneurial learning opportunities  Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA): Every student should have at least one non- lecture, experiential or high impact classroom experience at some point in their university career  Canadian Federation of Students (CFS): Prohibit institutions from requiring unpaid placements in programs of study or charging placement fees for co-op or internship placements  College Student Alliance (CSA): Lack of definition can misconstrue the meaning and application of applied learning

Much of the public financing of postsecondary education (PSE) – and of direct parental and student funding through tuition and ancillary fees – is founded on the belief that individuals and society as a whole benefit when the knowledge and skills gained by students while undertaking their postsecondary programs are transferrable to productive activities in the workplace and throughout the broader community. Most of Ontario’s colleges and universities already recognize the growing importance of integrating workplace-based experiential learning and classroom-based cognitive learning to generate well-rounded and employment-ready postsecondary graduates. Recent economic dislocations and a rapidly changing labour market are also forcing Ontario’s colleges and universities to revisit their curricula, and the traditional ways in which they have integrated work experience and postsecondary learning, if at all.

Within Ontario, the University of Waterloo now operates the largest postsecondary co-op program of its kind in the world, and in the winter of 2011 it had more than 5000 students involved in work placements, more than ever before. Meanwhile, the Ontario government has introduced tax credits directed at employers of co-op students which reimburse 25 to 30 per cent of eligible expenses, to a maximum of $3000, for each qualifying employee per work-placement term.

The Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) was created as a result of the 2005 Rae Review to provide advice to the provincial government on postsecondary policy issues, particularly in the areas of access, quality, and accountability. In 2009, HEQCO launched an extensive “Work-Integrated Learning” (WIL) research project designed to better understand postsecondary initiatives that integrate the classroom with the workplace. After a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process, HEQCO contracted with Academica Group Inc. to launch a preliminary study – Phase 1, completed in 2010 – in collaboration with nine Ontario postsecondary institutions: Algonquin College, George Brown College,

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 7

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Georgian College, Laurentian University, Niagara College, University of Ottawa, University of Waterloo, University of Windsor, and Wilfrid Laurier University. Five additional institutions – Carleton University, La Cité collégiale, Sheridan College, Western University, and York University – became partners for the much broader Phase 2, for which Academica Group Inc. was also contracted and which included separate student, faculty, and employer surveys. The findings of those surveys, particularly as they relate to the WIL experiences of University of Waterloo students, are summarized in this report.

Defining Work-Integrated Learning (WIL)

Several terms are used both separately and interchangeably to describe the process of combining academic and work-relevant learning, including experiential learning, experiential education, workplace learning, work-related learning, work-based learning, vocational learning, cooperative education, clinical education, practicum, fieldwork, internship, work experience, and more. The term “work-integrated learning” (WIL) is increasingly used to describe a range of educational activities within that broader spectrum that integrate learning within an academic institution with practical application in a workplace setting relevant to each student’s program of study or career goals. WIL takes many forms, with varying degrees of integration and a multitude of characteristics. There are some common features across the various forms, however, that distinguish WIL from more general work experience and experiential learning.

The final report for Phase A of the multi-year HEQCO project included the following definition of WIL:

the process whereby students come to learn from experiences in educational and practice settings and integrate the contributions of those experiences in developing the understandings, procedures and dispositions required for effective professional practice, including criticality (Billet, 2009: v).

Types of WIL

The input received from key informants at the partner colleges and universities during Phase A was also used to develop a revised typology of WIL, as set out in the table below. The typology proposes a spectrum of seven types of WIL, each distinguished by a wide range of characteristics, and reinforces the view that there is no single “ideal” form of WIL experience, with different forms offering different benefits. It is hoped that the typology will offer a useful tool to assist educators, students, employers, and government policy makers to better understand the complex array of WIL programs available in higher education. In fact, it is already being employed by MTCU to define WIL options in their Key Performance Indicator (KPI) instrument for Ontario colleges.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 8

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Table 1: Typology of Work-Integrated Learning Options

Systematic Institutional Structured Work Experience Training Partnerships

Workplace as PSE the central Familiarization with the world of work activities/programs to place of within a PSE program achieve industry or learning community goals

Mandatory Applied Field Service- Apprenticeships Professional Co-op Internships Research Experience learning Practice Projects

Apprenticeship Apprenticeships are dominated by on-the-job workplace training, which comprises about 90 per cent of the designated length of the program and is delivered under the guidance and instruction of certified journeypersons or qualified tradespersons. The remaining time in the program consists of periods of in- school training, which are usually brief, provide both theoretical and practical instruction, and are typically offered by community colleges, private career colleges, and through union-based training. The length of apprenticeship in each trade varies, with most programs lasting two to five years. After completing the program, apprentices can write a trade exam to obtain a Certification of Qualification and become certified “journeypersons” or skilled tradespersons. Because of its unique nature and the emphasis on non-school training, apprenticeships were largely excluded from the analysis undertaken in Phase B of HEQCO’s WIL study.

Field Experience Field experience includes placements and other work-related experiences that prepare students for professional or occupational fields but are not required for professional licensure. The placements are “scheduled hours of activities intended to give student hands-on experience in the workplace and for which the students do not typically receive a regular salary or wage from the employer.” They are typically core to the curriculum and necessary for the completion of the program. A field experience does not involve the direct supervision of students by institutional staff but may involve periodic site visits, and student performance is evaluated by the institution. Simulated work experiences – computer simulations, workplace practice role-plays, business practice firms, team-based projects – can also provide innovative opportunities for students to apply their acquired knowledge and skills.

Mandatory Professional Practice This type of WIL includes any professional practice-based arrangements that are necessary for professional licensure or designation, such as internships in law, practica in education, and practica, clinical education, or field placements in medical and health professions. The work may be paid or unpaid and is typically drawn from the range of work contexts graduates may be expected to encounter. It includes “clinical placements,” usually in a hospital or health care setting, and is characterized by activities that are core to the program curriculum and necessary for the successful completion of the program. Here again, students are closely supervised by institutional staff or individuals working on behalf of the institution. In some professional occupations, such as teaching and nursing, students participate in highly ordered and regulated practical experiences. In others, such as medicine and law, there are different kinds of long-standing practice-based arrangements.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 9

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Co-operative Education (Co-op) Within the typology, co-op was viewed as one option that could potentially cross almost all categories. Co-op programs are generally closely supervised, as well as being applied toward professional designation, conducted on a project basis, or undertaken to address a community need. Some apprenticeships can even be delivered using a co-op model. Many co-op programs operate year-round, and they also entail significant institutional investments in the administration of job placements, operational costs, and the hiring of additional faculty. The definition of the Canadian Association for Co- Operative Education (CAFCE), which has been endorsed by MTCU, defines a co-operative education program as one that formally integrates a student's academic studies with work experience, usually through alternate periods of experience in career-related fields and in accordance with to the following criteria:

 Each work situation is approved by the education institution as a suitable learning situation  The student is engaged in productive work rather than merely observing  The student receives remuneration for the work performed  The student's performance on the job is monitored by the institution, as well as being supervised and evaluated by the employer  The time spent in periods of work experience must be at least 30 per cent of the time spent in academic study

Internships Internships are similar in many ways to co-operative education, but tend to be less structured. Clarifying the distinction between internships and co-op programs is particularly important in order to address imprecisions in the usage of each term at the institutional level and elsewhere. Internships are work experiences, often a year or more in duration, planned to occur at or near the end of a program of study. They are offered in professional fields, with supervisors encouraged to provide mentoring support as well as supervision. They are supposed to engage students in meaningful work, paid or unpaid, but can also include job shadowing. The required workplace experience is typically undertaken either part-time, short- term, or over a specified number of hours, but the term is increasingly being employed more broadly to include unpaid work placements that are not tied to a postsecondary credential.

Applied Research Projects Project-based learning is used extensively in the humanities, social sciences, and natural/physical sciences, and is based on research suggesting that real-world projects can assist in enhancing students’ educational experience. The two key features of project-based learning opportunities are the presence of a problem that drives activities and the inclusion of the results in a final product. Applied research is increasingly being incorporated into college mandates and mission statements, and college research offices are attempting to identify more opportunities to fund and develop formal policies in this area.

Service-Learning Service-learning programs are more commonly found in universities and are intended to provide equal benefits to both the provider of the service (the student) and the recipient of the service (the community), while ensuring equal focus on both the service being provided and the learning that is occurring. The primary goals of service-learning are positive civic and academic outcomes, and the expectation is that the services provided by the student should meet the goals defined by the community in which they are provided. More than any other type of WIL, this one is intended to include an ongoing structured reflection by the student.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 10

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

WIL Surveys

After developing the preceding typology in Phase A of its project, HEQCO launched Phase B in the fall of 2010 to more fully explore the benefits of WIL to students, faculty and employers, and the overall quality and outcomes of various WIL options. Phase B included the following components:

 Faculty: Because the role of faculty is essential to the development and delivery of effective WIL programs, an online survey of college and university faculty from 13 of the partner institutions was conducted in March/April 2011. In the end, 3600 surveys were completed and a final report was published by HEQCO in early 2012.  Employers: A telephone survey of Ontario employers from all regions and of all sizes was undertaken in March/April 2012, at the same time as the graduating student survey was being completed. Nearly 3400 employers responded to the survey, and the final report was published by HEQCO in October 2012.  Students: The student survey was piloted at three partner institutions (Georgian College, Laurentian University, and Niagara College) in March/April 2011, and full implementation of the survey was undertaken among graduating students at all 14 partner colleges and universities in March/April 2012. The survey explored the experiences of both WIL and non-WIL students from various disciplines across both colleges and universities, and assessed awareness of WIL, motivations and barriers to participation, and perceived benefits. A final report is expected to be published early in 2013.

A follow-up student survey is also planned for the fall of 2013 for the approximately 75 per cent of students who agreed to be contacted when they completed the graduating student survey. This instrument will explore their labour market participation as well as other pathways and outcomes in the first 18 months since graduation from their first college or university program of study.

Three broad themes are addressed in the University of Waterloo report that follows, most of which are examined from the perspective of graduating students, faculty, and employers: o Participation in WIL o Challenges associated with WIL o Benefits of WIL

The remainder of this report is organized as follows:  Section two highlights the methodology for the graduating student, faculty, and employer surveys.  Section three provides an overview of the demographic profile of the three groups of interest.  Section four highlights data about participation in WIL for graduating students, faculty, and employers.  Section five addresses graduating student, faculty, and employer challenges associated with WIL.  Section six highlights some of the benefits associated with WIL participation.  Section seven provides a comparison between the University of Waterloo and all other participating universities.  Section eight, the final section, provides a summary of findings.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 11

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

2 – Survey Methodology

This report draws on data from three surveys that were conducted as part of a multi-phase HEQCO research project on WIL within Ontario’s postsecondary sector: the Graduating Student Survey, the Faculty Survey, and the Employer Survey. The overall project was guided by a working group of representatives from the partner institutions, who were closely involved in the design of the research study and the development of the data collection tools The working group included representatives from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), representing college faculty and MTCU, as well as three large organizations representing Ontario postsecondary students: the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), the Ontario Undergraduate Students’ Alliance (OUSA), and the College Student Alliance (CSA). The research firm Academica Group Inc. was contracted to develop the instruments, implement the survey, and report on the results.

This section outlines the methodology used for the development and implementation of all three surveys, including instrument design, sampling, and survey procedures. While the Graduating Student Survey and Faculty Survey were conducted at multiple institutions, the methodology below provides details of the sampling and administration process at the University of Waterloo only. Both the Graduating Student Survey and Faculty Survey were reviewed and approved by the University of Waterloo research ethics board prior to implementation. More detailed information about the Faculty and Employer Surveys can be found in reports available on the HEQCO website (www.heqco.ca). The report on the Graduating Student Survey will be completed in early 2013 and posted on the HEQCO website.

Graduating Student Survey

Survey Instrument The Graduating Student Survey gathered the perspectives of students on the motivations and barriers to participation in work-integrated learning (including co-ops, internships, practicums, field placements, and service-learning), overall satisfaction with their postsecondary education, and perceived outcomes related to learning, self-efficacy, and employability skills. The survey also captured characteristics of work- integrated learning and student experiences with full and/or part-time employment, summer jobs, and voluntary activities. The specific research questions explored in the Graduating Student Survey were:

1. What are the motivations and barriers to student participation in work-integrated learning? 2. To what extent does participation in WIL affect students’ satisfaction with their postsecondary education? Do the effects differ by type of WIL, program, or type of institution? 3. To what extent does participation in WIL affect student learning and academic performance? Do the effects differ by type of WIL, program, or type of institution? 4. To what extent does participation in WIL affect student self-efficacy? Do the effects differ by type of WIL, program, or institution? 5. Does participation in WIL have different effects for different groups of learners (gender, ethnicity, disability, income, entry into PSE)?

Instrument Development The Graduating Student Survey instrument was developed in close collaboration with the working group following an extensive review of the academic and practitioner literature on the issues and outcomes associated with student participation in WIL. The instrument also drew on exploratory research conducted by HEQCO and Academica Group Inc. in 2010 with 25 Ontario employers and 39 staff and faculty at nine postsecondary institutions (including the University of Waterloo) to identify faculty, staff, and employer perceptions of motivations, benefits, and challenges for WIL students. The initial draft instrument incorporated validated questions used in other research studies, as well as input received from members

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 12

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

of the HEQCO working group. The instrument was revised following online pretesting with 44 college and university students, and telephone interviews with ten college and university students to identify where wording required clarification or modification. The instrument was piloted with 1281 graduating students from Laurentian University, Georgian College, and Niagara College in March 2011, and further revised following a review of the data collected during pilot implementation. The final instrument included structured questions to gather demographic information and data on students’ postsecondary education and workplace or volunteer experiences, identify motivations and barriers to participation in WIL, and generate detailed profiles of the types of WIL and labour market activity in which students were participating. The final survey instrument required approximately 20 minutes to complete.

Sample The target population for the overall research study was full- or part-time postsecondary students in their final year of undergraduate study at an Ontario university, or final year of a program of study leading to an Ontario college diploma or certificate, who were expected to graduate in 2012. The University of Waterloo randomly selected half of the graduating student class to participate in the survey. In total, 1464 University of Waterloo students received an invitation to participate. Of these, 535 respondents completed the survey to an acceptable cut-off point for a 36.5 per cent response rate.

Procedure Academica Group’s proprietary Survey Management System™ (SMS™) software was used to program the survey instrument in both English and French and to collect the data. Invitations to participate in the research were sent by the participating institutions in March 2012, and the survey remained open until April 2012. Each invitation contained a unique log-in ID and password and an embedded link to the survey page to ensure that only individuals invited to participate could complete the survey, and to enable the tracking of survey completion rates. The e-mail invitation outlined the purpose of the research, and the survey landing page provided a printable letter of information. While the survey was in the field, two targeted reminders were sent to students who had not yet participated in the survey.

Instead of asking respondents to self-report their academic data, the survey asked respondents for consent to link their responses to three pieces of institutional administrative information: cumulative grade point average, program of study, and credential earned. This information was provided by the University of Waterloo for respondents who consented to the data linking. The data linking process ensured that the university did not have access to any of the respondent data collected in the survey.

Faculty Survey with and Perceptions of Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) in the Ontario Postsecondary Sector Survey Instrument The Faculty Survey instrument was developed following an extensive review of the academic and practitioner literature to identify findings from previous research on the perspectives and experiences of postsecondary faculty with WIL, and the implications of delivering WIL programs for postsecondary institutions and Ontario’s postsecondary education system. The instrument drew on HEQCO’s 2010 exploratory research with 25 Ontario employers and 39 staff and faculty at nine postsecondary institutions (including the University of Waterloo), and included modified versions of questions used in other research studies. It also incorporated input received from members of the HEQCO working group. The instrument was pretested online with 25 college and university faculty members from a variety of institutions and program areas, enabling improvements to the survey response options to better capture the views and experiences of faculty involved with WIL and those without WIL involvement. The final survey instrument included structured and open-ended questions to collect attitudinal and perceptional data related to WIL, as well as limited demographic information. The survey required approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 13

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Sample All full-time and part-time faculty at the University of Waterloo who were involved in teaching academic credit courses leading to an undergraduate degree in the 2010-2011 academic year were invited to participate in the survey. Faculty who taught exclusively at the postgraduate level or in professional programs were excluded, given the focus of the study on undergraduate degree programs. In total, 1893 University of Waterloo faculty members were invited to participate in the survey. Of these, 472 responded for a response rate of 24.9 per cent.

Procedure Academica Group’s proprietary Survey Management System™ (SMS™) software was used to program the survey instrument in both English and French and to collect the data. Invitations to participate in the research were sent by the participating institutions in late March and early April, and the survey remained open until May 2011. Each invitation contained a unique log-in ID and password and an embedded link to the survey page to ensure that only individuals invited to participate could complete the survey and to enable the tracking of survey completion rates. The e-mail invitation outlined the purpose of the research, and the survey landing page provided a printable letter of information. While the survey was in the field, two targeted reminders were sent to faculty who had not participated in the survey, and four of the partner institutions sent a third reminder.

Employer Survey

Survey Instrument The research objectives for the WIL Employer Survey were to gather employer opinions on the preparedness and skills of recent Ontario postsecondary graduates (in particular, graduates who had participated in college or university work-integrated learning programs) and to gain an accurate understanding of employers’ current, past, and planned participation in work-integrated learning (including the motivations and barriers to participation).

Instrument Development The Employer Survey instrument was developed following an extensive review of the academic and practitioner literature to identify findings from previous research on employer experiences with WIL and with the employment of postsecondary graduates. The instrument drew on HEQCO’s 2010 exploratory research with 25 Ontario employers and 39 staff and faculty at nine postsecondary institutions (including the University of Waterloo) and included modified versions of questions used in other research studies. Originally intended for online administration using a snowball sampling approach, the instrument was pretested online with 32 Ontario employers representing various sizes and sectors, and revised in response to working group feedback. To improve the reliability and validity of the results, the instrument was further revised to enable telephone administration with randomly selected employers. The final survey required approximately ten minutes to complete.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 14

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Sample A stratified sampling approach was used for this study. To obtain the sampling frame, the Dun and Bradstreet Hoover’s database was purchased.1 The sampling frame was stratified by sector and size. To stratify the sample by sector, NAICS codes were used to create 12 sector groupings, which took into account strategic sector priorities of the Ontario government as well as sectors with higher proportions of youth employment. For each sector, response quotas were established to enable subgroup analysis, ensuring a +/- 5% margin of error in five sectors (Finance; Health and Social Services; Information and Cultural Industries; Manufacturing; and Professional, Scientific and Business Services) and a +/- 7 per cent margin of error in the remaining seven sectors. The overall margin of error is +/- 2 per cent.

Stratification by size used the four size categories of Canadian Industry Statistics, which is based on regrouped size categories from the Canadian Business Patterns database. Micro employers from all but one sector grouping were excluded from the sample.2 Within each stratum, a random sample was selected. Medium- and large-sized business strata were oversampled to enable analysis by size of organization. The sample was drawn based on a 10:1 sample-to-completion ratio using the quotas for each of the 12 sector groupings. During the study, additional cases were randomly selected and added to the sample as needed to reach the quotas within the specified study period. The final total sample was 43,378 Ontario business and organizations, with a resulting functional sample of 35,133 following the removal of invalid numbers.

Procedure To select the individual respondent to represent the sampled business or organization, callers asked to speak to the person within the firm who was responsible for human resource decisions or who was involved in the recruitment, screening, or supervision of college and university students in the workplace. Respondents were able to complete the survey in either English or French. Initially, respondents were also offered the option of completing the survey online. However, due to low completion rates among respondents who were e-mailed the survey link during the first week in the field, the option to complete online was used only to secure cooperation if the respondent refused to participate in the telephone survey.

A target respondent was reached at 7881 of the organizations. Of these, 3369 employers completed the survey. This represents an overall response rate of 9.6 per cent and a respondent-level cooperation rate of 42.7 per cent.3

Analysis Prior to analysis, data from the Graduating Student and Employer surveys were weighted to ensure an accurate representation of the University of Waterloo graduating student population (by age and gender) and the population of all Ontario employers (by size and sector). Faculty data was not weighted. This report provides the unweighted counts for student and employer results to indicate the actual numbers of respondents, as well as the weighted percentages. All interpretations provided in the text are based on the weighted data shown in the weighted percentages.

1 The Hoover’s database lists over 500,000 Ontario businesses and organizations and is continually updated by in-house editorial staff. The database includes industry NAICS codes for each firm, numbers of employees, and contact telephone numbers for individual business locations. Access to individual locations was important to the study, as the questions were designed to gather insights about direct employer experiences with postsecondary graduates at individual establishment sites, rather than from the main offices of organizations with multiple sites. 2 Given the small number of firms within the Forestry sector, the sample included Forestry sector employers with two to four employees. 3 The response rate is calculated as the total number of completes divided by the total functional sample. The cooperation rate is calculated as the total number of completes divided by the number of targets reached. Both calculations follow the American Association for Public Opinion Research (2011) standards.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 15

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Where possible, the analysis only considers results for Ontario employers who hire university students or work with Ontario universities to provide WIL opportunities for students, since these employers would typically be expected to hire University of Waterloo graduates.

The following analytic protocols apply to all tables with subscripts:  Values in the same row and sub-table not sharing the same subscript are significantly different at p<.05 in the two-sided test of equality for column means.  Cells with no subscript are not included in the test.  Tests assume equal variances.  Tests are adjusted for all pairwise comparisons within a row of each innermost sub-table using the Bonferroni correction.  Some tables include cell counts in some sub-tables that are not integers. They were rounded to the nearest integer before performing pairwise comparisons.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 16

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

3 – Demographic Profile

The demographic characteristics for each respondent group analyzed in this report are highlighted in the tables below.

Graduating Student Survey

The results presented in Table 2 have been weighted to reflect the actual gender and age characteristics of University of Waterloo graduating students. University of Waterloo graduating students are more likely to be male and overwhelmingly fall into the 20 to 24 age category. About one in ten graduates are between 25 and 29 years of age, and only 3.3 per cent are 30 years or older. As would be expected given their younger age profile, most graduating students applied directly to the University of Waterloo out of high school, and were unlikely to be married or have dependent children.

Among survey respondents, only 4 per cent of graduating students from the University of Waterloo identified as having a disability, and about one in five was the first in his or her family to attend postsecondary education. More than one-third of respondents were graduates of the faculties of Math, Science or Engineering, and close to two-thirds were graduates of Applied Health Sciences, Arts, or Environment.

Additional demographic information can be found in Appendix C.

Table 2: Graduating Student Profile (University of Waterloo) Unweighted Weighted n % Male 54.4 Gender 527 Female 45.6 20-24 85.9 25-29 10.8 Age group 525 30-34 1.2 35-39 0.6 40+ 1.5 Direct 80.4 Entry type 527 Delayed 19.6 Single 93.2 Marital status 519 Married/common-law 6.3 Divorced/separated/widowed 0.5 No children 97.0 1 0.9 Dependent children 534 2 0.9 3 0.6 4 or more 0.6 Math, Science, Engineering 37.2 Program group 521 Applied Health Sciences, Arts, Environment 62.8 Yes 3.8 Students with a disability 517 No 96.2 Yes 19.0 First-generation student 519 No 81.0

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 17

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Faculty Survey

About one-third of University of Waterloo faculty survey respondents were female, and respondents were evenly distributed across three age categories. Almost half of the sample was from the Faculty of Arts, with the remainder from Math, Science, and Engineering. More than half of all respondents had participated in WIL when they were students, and close to one in five had extensive employment experience outside the university. About one-quarter of respondents were involved with the delivery of WIL within a course, and more than half taught in programs that included a WIL component (typically co- op). Only one in five respondents from the University of Waterloo reported no involvement with WIL.

Table 3: Faculty Profile n % Male 67.9 Gender 455 Female 32.1 Under 40 33.5 Age group 472 40 to 49 31.4 50 and Older 35.2 Math, Science, Engineering 48.8 Program group 469 Applied Health Sciences, Arts, Environment 51.2 0-5 29.4 Years teaching at the postsecondary level 472 6-15 37.1 16+ 33.5 Less than one year 11.2 1-5 years 33.7 6-10 years 18.9 Years teaching at current institution 466 11-15 years 12.7 16-20 years 5.2 More than 20 years 18.5 College full-time 1.5 College partial load or part-time 0.2 College sessional 0.9 Current status as a faculty member at this University tenured 42.9 470 institution University tenure-track 17.2 University limited-term appointment 9.1 University contract or sessional 27.8 Other 0.4 No experience 37.1 0-10 years 44.5 Non-academic employment experience 472 11-20 years 11.9 More than 20 years 6.6 Yes 51.3 Participated in WIL as a student 468 No 48.7 Teach course with WIL 25.2 Level of WIL involvement 469 Teach in program with WIL 55.4 No WIL 19.4

Employer Survey

As described in the methodology, employer respondents were drawn from the twelve sector groupings created to administer the survey. For further information about the industries represented in each sector, see Appendix B. In line with the distribution of sectors within the Ontario economy, employers from the retail trades sector make up the largest proportion of respondents, while employers from the public

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 18

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

administration sector make up the smallest proportion. Company sizes have been divided into four groups, ranging from very small organizations with less than ten employees to large organizations with more than 50 employees. Small employers make up over a third of all employers, as do employers operating in central Ontario.

Table 4: Employer Profile Unweighted Weighted n % Accommodation, food and consumer services 14.9 Arts, entertainment and civic/professional organizations 4.3 Construction 9.3 Educational services 1.5 Finance, insurance, real estate and leasing 7.6 Forestry, mining, oil and gas extraction, and utilities 2.2 Sector 3369 Health care and social assistance 9.5 Information and cultural industries 1.4 Manufacturing 7.7 Professional, scientific and business services 12.9 Public administration 0.6 Transportation, warehousing and trade (wholesale and retail) 28.0 Total 100.0 5-94 40.3 10-19 30.9 Size 3369 20-49 18.1 50+ 10.7 Total 100.0 Eastern 18.8 Central 46.4 Region 3369 Southwestern 23.9 Northern 10.9 Total 100.0

4 As noted in the methodology, this size category includes 56 forestry sector respondents with less than five employees.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 19

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

4 – Participation in WIL

This section of the report provides insights into the students and faculty who reported having participated in WIL at the University of Waterloo, as well as employers most likely to offer WIL opportunities to University of Waterloo students.

Of particular interest are the proportions of students who participated in WIL, their reasons for doing so, and what socio-demographic differences, if any, exist between them. It is also important to know if students who did not participate in WIL had the option of doing so, why they decided not to participate in WIL, and how many would choose a program with a WIL component if given the option to start over.

Faculty members’ participation in WIL is assessed by measuring the extent to which their teaching involves WIL. An informal measure of faculty members’ participation in WIL is attained by examining the degree to which their teaching integrates student learning with real-world experiences. Given concerns identified in the literature and in the earlier exploratory study about the impact of WIL on faculty workloads, findings that address the experiences of WIL faculty, including the implementation of WIL and the amount of work required, are also presented. Faculty members’ perceptions of the purposes of PSE, and the extent to which their teaching fosters these purposes, are also examined, as is the impact of socio-demographic characteristics on faculty perceptions. Given the widespread availability of co-op programs at the University of Waterloo, this study also explored faculty members’ perceptions of whether the amount of WIL offered in PSE should be increased or decreased.

Employers’ participation in WIL is assessed by examining how many employers in the past two years have provided WIL and for how long. This section also addresses why employers do not offer WIL and why some have discontinued their involvement in WIL. This analysis considers how company size and, where n-sizes are sufficient, the sector, mediate these reasons. This chapter concludes by presenting ways in which employer participation in WIL could better be facilitated.

Summaries from the three provincial level surveys – Graduating Student, Faculty, and Employer – are provided in each chapter to serve as a point of comparison.

Graduating Student Survey

Provincial Graduating Student Survey The provincial study found that close to half of graduating university students5 participated or would be participating in some form of WIL during their PSE. The most common type of WIL that students participated in was practicum or clinical placements, with about one-third of WIL students reporting that they would be taking part in this type of WIL before graduation. About one-quarter of WIL university students participated in an internship and one-fifth participated in a co-op program. Of the university students who did not participate in WIL, one-half said that they would select a program that offered WIL if they could start their PSE over again.

5 Participating universities: Carleton University, Laurentian University, University of Ottawa, University of Waterloo, Western University, University of Windsor, and York University

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 20

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

University of Waterloo Graduating Students How many University of Waterloo students participated in WIL? The majority of University of Waterloo graduating student respondents participated in some type of WIL. Close to half were graduating from a co-op program (48%), and just less than 30 per cent were graduating from a program with no WIL. A very small percentage of students started in co-op and subsequently transferred out (4%).

Figure 1: WIL Participation 60% 48% 50%

40% 30% 30%

20% 16%

10% 4% 2% 0% Co-op Other WIL No WIL Future WIL Started in co- op but transferred out

Are there any significant differences in WIL participation by socio-demographic characteristics? Graduates of co-op programs were significantly more likely to be male and to have entered university directly from high school compared to all other University of Waterloo graduates. Co-op graduates were also significantly less likely than non-WIL graduates to be the first in their family to graduate from PSE. Table 5: WIL Participation by Socio-Demographics Type of WIL Co-op Other WIL No WIL n=255 n=89 n=161 % Male 64.4 37.4 44.7 Gender a b b Female 35.6a 62.6b 55.3b Direct entry 89.2 71.4 70.5 Entry type a b b Delayed entry 10.8a 28.6b 29.5b Yes 15.4 16.3 26.5 First-generation status a a,b b No 84.6a 83.7a,b 73.5b Math, SCI, ENG 35.4 37.6 39.8 Program group6 a a a AHS, Arts, ENV 64.6a 62.4a 60.2a

6 Programs in some faculties were placed in two groups because of small sample sizes and because data are adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction method.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 21

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Of those who did not participate in WIL, did their program provide the option? Given that 80 per cent of the University of Waterloo’s undergraduate programs provide a co-op option, it is not surprising that almost two-thirds of the 160 non-WIL students indicated that their program offered a WIL option. Table 6: Program Option to Participate in WIL % Unweighted n Yes 63.5 101 Does your current postsecondary program offer students the option of participating in WIL? No 24.2 39 Not sure 12.3 20

What are the most common reasons graduating students provide for not participating in WIL? Graduating students were provided with a list of factors that may have influenced their decision not to participate in WIL and were asked to indicate the degree to which they felt each factor played a role in their decision. It is clear that none of the factors had a very large impact on students’ decisions not to participate, as the highest average rating – attributed to not wanting to delay or disrupt program completion – was said to be only somewhat influential. All other reasons, including the next highest rated (concern about finding a suitable WIL placement), were indicated as being less than somewhat influential. (1=Not at all; 2=A little; 3=Somewhat; 4=Quite a bit; 5=Very much) Table 7: Reasons for Not Participating in WIL Mean (n=106) I didn’t want to delay or disrupt the completion of my program 3.00 I worried about my ability to find a suitable WIL placement 2.63 I never intended to do WIL when I started my postsecondary program 2.54 I was worried about additional costs or expenses 2.19 The WIL placement was too far from where I live 1.92 I didn’t think it would make any difference to my future career prospects 1.89 I wasn’t sure what the WIL option would require 1.88 My academic course schedule would not accommodate a WIL option 1.84 I’m not sure if I’m going to work in my program area when I graduate 1.82 There was too much work involved in the WIL option 1.78 The payment for the WIL was not enough 1.64 I heard negative things about the WIL option 1.60 My employment responsibilities did not allow me to participate 1.55 I did not have the prerequisites necessary to apply 1.47 There was no payment for doing the WIL 1.47 My friends were not participating in WIL 1.45 There was no academic credit offered 1.38 I already have enough work experience 1.38 I applied for the WIL option but did not get in 1.36 My family responsibilities did not allow me to participate 1.26 I received Prior Learning Recognition for the work experience I already had 1.13

Do students’ reasons for not participating in WIL differ socio-demographically? Generally speaking, male and female graduating students from the University of Waterloo do not differ significantly in their reasons for not participating in WIL. Where significant differences do exist, female graduating students were more influenced by being unsure as to what the WIL option required, hearing

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 22

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

negative things about the WIL option, and being restricted by employment and family responsibilities. However, these reasons carried little weight, as only uncertainty about what the WIL option required was considered more than a little influential. (1=Not at all influential; 2=A little influential; 3=Somewhat influential; 4=Quite influential; 5=Very influential) Table 8: Reasons for Not Participating in WIL by Gender Gender Male Female n=29 n=74 Mean

I didn’t want to delay or disrupt the completion of my program 2.87a 3.14a

I worried about my ability to find a suitable WIL placement 2.34a 2.89a

I never intended to do WIL when I started my postsecondary program 2.53a 2.59a

I was worried about additional costs or expenses 2.20a 2.16a

The WIL placement was too far from where I live 1.67a 2.15a

I didn’t think it would make any difference to my future career prospects 1.90a 1.89a

I wasn’t sure what the WIL option would require 1.61a 2.10b

My academic course schedule would not accommodate a WIL option 1.93a 1.81a

I’m not sure if I’m going to work in my program area when I graduate 1.64a 1.99a

There was too much work involved in the WIL option 1.76a 1.80a

The payment for the WIL was not enough 1.64a 1.66a

I heard negative things about the WIL option 1.38a 1.77b

My employment responsibilities did not allow me to participate 1.24a 1.76b

I did not have the prerequisites necessary to apply 1.49a 1.49a

There was no payment for doing the WIL 1.34a 1.58a

My friends were not participating in WIL 1.35a 1.54a

There was no academic credit offered 1.24a 1.51a

I already have enough work experience 1.38a 1.40a

I applied for the WIL option but did not get in 1.35a 1.31a

My family responsibilities did not allow me to participate 1.03a 1.38b

I received Prior Learning Recognition for the work experience I already had 1.14a 1.13a

Similar to the results by gender, there are a limited number of significant differences among graduating students by entry type. Where significant differences were found, it was direct entrants who ascribed a greater level of influence than delayed entrants to the barriers presented. In particular, direct entrants were influenced to a greater extent by not wanting to delay or disrupt program completion, finding suitable WIL placements, being unsure about their field of employment, and not being accepted to the WIL option.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 23

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Not at all influential; 2=A little influential; 3=Somewhat influential; 4=Quite influential; 5=Very influential) Table 9: Reasons for Not Participating in WIL by Entry Type Entry Type

Direct Delayed n=84 n=22 Mean I didn’t want to delay or disrupt the completion of my program 3.19a 2.51b I worried about my ability to find a suitable WIL placement 2.91a 1.89b I never intended to do WIL when I started my postsecondary program 2.54a 2.54a I was worried about additional costs or expenses 2.23a 2.09a The WIL placement was too far from where I live 1.92a 1.90a I didn’t think it would make any difference to my future career prospects 1.95a 1.75a I wasn’t sure what the WIL option would require 1.88a 1.86a My academic course schedule would not accommodate a WIL option 1.72a 2.16a I’m not sure if I’m going to work in my program area when I graduate 2.02a 1.31b There was too much work involved in the WIL option 1.84a 1.61a The payment for the WIL was not enough 1.65a 1.62a I heard negative things about the WIL option 1.69a 1.34a My employment responsibilities did not allow me to participate 1.58a 1.47a I did not have the prerequisites necessary to apply 1.47a 1.49a There was no payment for doing the WIL 1.53a 1.33a My friends were not participating in WIL 1.47a 1.38a There was no academic credit offered 1.48a 1.12a I already have enough work experience 1.28a 1.63a I applied for the WIL option but did not get in 1.48a 1.03b My family responsibilities did not allow me to participate 1.24a 1.32a I received Prior Learning Recognition for the work experience I already had 1.13a 1.13a

Only two significant differences were noted between graduating students based on their first-generation status. First-generation students expressed more concern about the additional costs associated with a WIL program, and they were also more likely to indicate that they did not participate in WIL because they already had enough work experience.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 24

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Not at all influential; 2=A little influential; 3=Somewhat influential; 4=Quite influential; 5=Very influential) Table 10: Reasons for Not Participating in WIL by First-generation Student Status First-generation Student Yes No n=25 n=77 Mean

I didn’t want to delay or disrupt the completion of my program 3.02a 3.01a

I worried about my ability to find a suitable WIL placement 2.64a 2.64a

I never intended to do WIL when I started my postsecondary program 2.71a 2.50a

I was worried about additional costs or expenses 2.79a 2.00b

The WIL placement was too far from where I live 1.83a 1.99a

I didn’t think it would make any difference to my future career prospects 2.17a 1.81a

I wasn’t sure what the WIL option would require 1.80a 1.91a

My academic course schedule would not accommodate a WIL option 1.55a 1.89a

I’m not sure if I’m going to work in my program area when I graduate 1.70a 1.85a

There was too much work involved in the WIL option 1.66a 1.82a

The payment for the WIL was not enough 1.91a 1.58a

I heard negative things about the WIL option 1.70a 1.59a

My employment responsibilities did not allow me to participate 1.63a 1.51a

I did not have the prerequisites necessary to apply 1.23a 1.56a

There was no payment for doing the WIL 1.58a 1.46a

My friends were not participating in WIL 1.36a 1.46a

There was no academic credit offered 1.58a 1.34a

I already have enough work experience 1.63a 1.27b

I applied for the WIL option but did not get in 1.06a 1.48a

My family responsibilities did not allow me to participate 1.47a 1.20a

I received Prior Learning Recognition for the work experience I already had 1.10a 1.15a

When reasons for not participating in WIL are broken down by program group, a few statistically significant differences among graduating students are found. Applied Health Sciences, Arts, and Environment students were influenced to a greater extent by concerns about finding a suitable WIL placement, uncertainty about the requirements of a WIL option, and their friends’ participation in WIL.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 25

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Not at all influential; 2=A little influential; 3=Somewhat influential; 4=Quite influential; 5=Very influential) Table 11: Reasons for Not Participating in WIL by Program Group Program Group Math, SCI, AHS, Arts, ENG ENV n=45 n=57 Mean

I didn’t want to delay or disrupt the completion of my program 2.97a 3.02a

I worried about my ability to find a suitable WIL placement 2.28a 2.91b

I never intended to do WIL when I started my postsecondary program 2.55a 2.53a

I was worried about additional costs or expenses 2.21a 2.25a

The WIL placement was too far from where I live 1.99a 1.86a

I didn’t think it would make any difference to my future career prospects 1.81a 1.96a

I wasn’t sure what the WIL option would require 1.61a 2.07b

My academic course schedule would not accommodate a WIL option 1.59a 2.00a

I’m not sure if I’m going to work in my program area when I graduate 1.85a 1.76a

There was too much work involved in the WIL option 1.65a 1.89a

The payment for the WIL was not enough 1.50a 1.73a

I heard negative things about the WIL option 1.55a 1.61a

My employment responsibilities did not allow me to participate 1.46a 1.54a

I did not have the prerequisites necessary to apply 1.35a 1.59a

There was no payment for doing the WIL 1.34a 1.55a

My friends were not participating in WIL 1.27a 1.61b

There was no academic credit offered 1.26a 1.45a

I already have enough work experience 1.28a 1.42a

I applied for the WIL option but did not get in 1.36a 1.37a

My family responsibilities did not allow me to participate 1.38a 1.18a

I received Prior Learning Recognition for the work experience I already had 1.03a 1.20a

How many students would select a program with a WIL component if they had the option to start over, and what are the most common reasons to do so? While more than one-quarter of University of Waterloo graduating students who did not participate in WIL indicated that they would not choose a program with a WIL component if given the option to start over, slightly more than one-half indicated that they would. Table 12: Would Choose WIL if Starting Over % Unweighted n Yes 50.6 84 If you could start over again, would you select a program that offered WIL? No 27.1 41 Not sure 22.2 36

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 26

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Graduating students who did not participate in WIL but would if given the option to start PSE over again were asked to indicate the extent to which the reasons in Table 13 would influence their choice. Several reasons were highly influential, including gaining program-related work experience, résumé enhancement, making job search contacts, improving employability skills, increasing earning potential, earning money while doing WIL, and determining career fit. (1=Not at all influential; 2=A little influential; 3=Somewhat influential; 4=Quite influential; 5=Very influential) Table 13: Why Choose WIL if Starting Over Mean (n=535) To gain practical work experience related to my field of study 4.73 To enhance my résumé 4.41 To make contacts for my job search after I graduate 4.31 To improve my employability skills (i.e., communication, teamwork, problem-solving) 4.27 To increase my earning potential after I graduate 4.26 To earn money while doing WIL 4.13 To determine my fit with the career or industry I’m considering 4.10 To get a job with the employer providing the WIL 3.94 To experience a professional work environment 3.91 To explore different career options 3.86 To work in a position that gives me greater responsibility 3.78 To apply the theory and skills I learned in the classroom 3.72 To help people in need 3.46 To prepare for further education 3.45 To contribute to my community 3.23

Do significant differences exist between students from different program groups? University of Waterloo graduates from Applied Health Sciences, Arts, and Environment were more likely than graduating students from Math, Science, and Engineering to indicate that, if given the option to start their program over again, they would choose a program that offered WIL. (1=Not at all influential; 2=A little influential; 3=Somewhat influential; 4=Quite influential; 5=Very influential) Table 14: Would Choose WIL if Starting Over by Program Group Program Group Math, SCI, ENG AHS, Arts, ENV n=62 n=93 % Yes 44.7 55.5 If you could start over again, would you select a program that offered WIL? No 33.9 21.4 Not sure 21.4 23.1

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 27

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

What are the most common reasons graduating students provide for participating in WIL? The top rated reasons among graduating students who participated in WIL – to gain practical work experience, and résumé enhancement – are the same reasons as those for graduating students who would choose to do a WIL program if given the opportunity to start their degree over. (1=Not at all influential; 2=A little influential; 3=Somewhat influential; 4=Quite influential; 5=Very influential) Table 15: Reasons for Participating in WIL Mean (n=374) To gain practical work experience related to my field of study 4.60 To enhance my résumé 4.40 To determine my fit with the career or industry I’m considering 4.28 To improve my employability skills (i.e., communication, teamwork, problem-solving) 4.24 To earn money while doing WIL 4.02 To experience a professional work environment 3.96 To make contacts for my job search after I graduate 3.92 To explore different career options 3.89 To increase my earning potential after I graduate 3.80 To apply the theory and skills I learned in the classroom 3.67 To work in a position that gives me greater responsibility 3.59 To get a job with the employer providing the WIL 3.54 To meet mandatory program or course requirements 3.15 To prepare for further education 2.95 To contribute to my community 2.60 To help people in need 2.49

Graduating students’ motivations for participating in WIL vary significantly according to the type of WIL in which they participated. Some of the more significant differences include co-op students being more motivated than other WIL students by improving employability skills, earning money, experiencing a professional work environment, making job contacts, exploring career options, increasing earning potential, and meeting program requirements. Other WIL graduating students were, however, more motivated by altruistic reasons, including contributing to their community and helping people in need.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 28

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Not at all influential; 2=A little influential; 3=Somewhat influential; 4=Quite influential; 5=Very influential) Table 16: Reasons for Participating in WIL by Type of WIL Type of WIL Co-op Other WIL n=255 n=89 Mean

To gain practical work experience related to my field of study 4.73a 4.39b

To enhance my résumé 4.55a 4.04b

To determine my fit with the career or industry I’m considering 4.39a 4.08b To improve my employability skills (i.e., communication, teamwork, problem- solving) 4.37a 3.97b

To earn money while doing WIL 4.48a 2.76b

To experience a professional work environment 4.06a 3.80b

To make contacts for my job search after I graduate 4.09a 3.59b

To explore different career options 4.08a 3.33b

To increase my earning potential after I graduate 4.10a 2.98b

To apply the theory and skills I learned in the classroom 3.70a 3.74a

To work in a position that gives me greater responsibility 3.71a 3.35b

To get a job with the employer providing the WIL 3.73a 3.14b

To meet mandatory program or course requirements 3.29a 2.89b

To prepare for further education 2.94a 3.02a

To contribute to my community 2.47a 2.97b

To help people in need 2.26a 3.08b

Are there socio-demographic differences in reasons for participating? When looking at graduating students’ reasons for participating in WIL by gender, some statistically significant differences are found. Males were more likely to be motivated by the opportunity to earn money while in school and to increase their earning potential after graduation, while females were more likely to place a higher value on altruistic reasons (contributing to the community and helping people in need). However, these altruistic reasons were rated as less than somewhat influential by both males and females.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 29

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Not at all influential; 2=A little influential; 3=Somewhat influential; 4=Quite influential; 5=Very influential) Table 17: Reasons for Participating in WIL by Gender Gender Male Female n=170 n=201 Mean

To gain practical work experience related to my field of study 4.61a 4.59a

To enhance my résumé 4.42a 4.37a

To determine my fit with the career or industry I’m considering 4.30a 4.24a To improve my employability skills (i.e., communication, teamwork, problem- solving) 4.26a 4.20a

To earn money while doing WIL 4.34a 3.58b

To experience a professional work environment 3.98a 3.93a

To make contacts for my job search after I graduate 3.94a 3.91a

To explore different career options 3.90a 3.86a

To increase my earning potential after I graduate 4.03a 3.47b

To apply the theory and skills I learned in the classroom 3.61a 3.75a

To work in a position that gives me greater responsibility 3.68a 3.46a

To get a job with the employer providing the WIL 3.63a 3.41a

To meet mandatory program or course requirements 3.13a 3.21a

To prepare for further education 2.90a 3.01a

To contribute to my community 2.43a 2.84b

To help people in need 2.28a 2.79b

There are several significant differences between direct-entry and delayed-entry graduating students in their motivations for participating in WIL. Compared to delayed entrants, direct entrants were influenced to a greater extent by earning money while doing WIL and increasing their earning potential after graduation. Delayed entrants were more motivated by a desire to apply classroom theory and skills, meeting mandatory program or course requirements, preparing for further education, contributing to the community, and helping people in need.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 30

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Not at all influential; 2=A little influential; 3=Somewhat influential; 4=Quite influential; 5=Very influential) Table 18: Reasons for Participating in WIL by Entry Type Entry Type Direct Delayed n=317 n=57 Mean To gain practical work experience related to my field of study 4.59a 4.67a To enhance my résumé 4.42a 4.30a To determine my fit with the career or industry I’m considering 4.28a 4.25a To improve my employability skills (i.e., communication, teamwork, 4.22a 4.32a problem-solving) To earn money while doing WIL 4.13a 3.42b To experience a professional work environment 3.96a 3.97a To make contacts for my job search after I graduate 3.93a 3.91a To explore different career options 3.88a 3.91a To increase my earning potential after I graduate 3.89a 3.31b To apply the theory and skills I learned in the classroom 3.59a 4.10b To work in a position that gives me greater responsibility 3.59a 3.53a To get a job with the employer providing the WIL 3.51a 3.69a To meet mandatory program or course requirements 3.04a 3.76b To prepare for further education 2.89a 3.32b To contribute to my community 2.50a 3.16b To help people in need 2.36a 3.22b

While first-generation students were similar to non-first-generation students in their motivations for participating in WIL, they were more influenced by exploring different career options and determining career fit in their decision to participate in WIL.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 31

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Not at all influential; 2=A little influential; 3=Somewhat influential; 4=Quite influential; 5=Very influential) Table 19: Reasons for Participating in WIL by First-generation Student Status First-generation Student Yes No n=61 n=304 Mean

To gain practical work experience related to my field of study 4.52a 4.63a

To enhance my résumé 4.52a 4.38a

To determine my fit with the career or industry I’m considering 4.53a 4.24b

To improve my employability skills (i.e., communication, teamwork, problem-solving) 4.40a 4.22a

To earn money while doing WIL 4.13a 4.02a

To experience a professional work environment 4.13a 3.94a

To make contacts for my job search after I graduate 4.12a 3.88a

To explore different career options 4.20a 3.83b

To increase my earning potential after I graduate 4.06a 3.74a

To apply the theory and skills I learned in the classroom 3.88a 3.63a

To work in a position that gives me greater responsibility 3.74a 3.55a

To get a job with the employer providing the WIL 3.48a 3.55a

To meet mandatory program or course requirements 3.02a 3.18a

To prepare for further education 3.20a 2.91a

To contribute to my community 2.69a 2.57a

To help people in need 2.63a 2.45a

Analysis by program group shows that graduating students in Applied Health Sciences, Arts, and Environment were more likely than Math, Science, and Engineering graduates to participate in WIL in order to determine career fit.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 32

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Not at all influential; 2=A little influential; 3=Somewhat influential; 4=Quite influential; 5=Very influential) Table 20: Reasons for Participating in WIL by Program Group Program Group Math, SCI, AHS, Arts, ENG ENV n=133 n=233 Mean

To gain practical work experience related to my field of study 4.59a 4.62a

To enhance my résumé 4.35a 4.44a

To determine my fit with the career or industry I’m considering 4.12a 4.35b

To improve my employability skills (i.e., communication, teamwork, problem-solving) 4.20a 4.27a

To earn money while doing WIL 4.06a 4.00a

To experience a professional work environment 3.87a 4.03a

To make contacts for my job search after I graduate 3.81a 3.98a

To explore different career options 3.89a 3.89a

To increase my earning potential after I graduate 3.76a 3.82a

To apply the theory and skills I learned in the classroom 3.59a 3.73a

To work in a position that gives me greater responsibility 3.56a 3.61a

To get a job with the employer providing the WIL 3.37a 3.62a

To meet mandatory program or course requirements 3.21a 3.13a

To prepare for further education 2.96a 2.95a

To contribute to my community 2.55a 2.62a

To help people in need 2.49a 2.49a

Faculty Survey

Provincial Faculty Survey Over two-thirds of university faculty who participated in the provincial-level study7 taught in co-op programs, and almost 30 per cent taught a course with a WIL component. Many faculty incorporated activities designed to integrate real-world work experiences with student learning into their courses, which can be considered an informal type of WIL. However, faculty indicated that they were most likely to engage in activities that involved limited contact with employers or the local community, and that did not require a greater degree of planning, such as class visits to local businesses. Faculty who taught a course with WIL were the most likely to undertake activities to integrate student learning with real-world work experiences. To assess the workload implications of delivering WIL programs, faculty respondents who taught a course with a WIL component were presented with 17 different WIL-related tasks. For each task they performed, faculty were asked the extent to which they were able to manage the task within their regular workload responsibilities. Almost all university faculty reported performing at least some of the activities, with close to half reporting that they carried out 11 or more tasks. Almost 60 per cent of university faculty indicated

7 Participating universities: Laurentian University, University of Ottawa, University of Waterloo, Western University, University of Windsor, and York University

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 33

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

that six or more of the activities were completed as part of their regular duties – typically classroom- focused tasks – while 21 per cent reported completing six or more of the activities – typically career and employer-related tasks – in addition to their regular duties. Faculty were also asked their views about the purposes of PSE and the degree to which their teaching was intended to contribute to these purposes. There was strong agreement about developing students’ ability to think critically and analytically as a primary purpose of PSE, with more than 90 per cent of university faculty identifying this as an important goal of their teaching. This was followed by applying skills and knowledge in different situations, working independently, and writing clearly and effectively. When asked about the appropriate level of WIL in PSE, less than 5 per cent of university faculty felt there should be a decrease, and 44 per cent supported increasing the number of WIL opportunities for students. The remaining faculty were evenly divided between those who believed that no change in the amount of WIL was needed, and those who were unsure as to the appropriate level of WIL.

University of Waterloo Faculty What types of faculty members were more likely to be involved with WIL? More than one-half of the 469 University of Waterloo faculty survey respondents indicated that they taught in a program with WIL (55%), exactly one-quarter taught in a course with WIL, and just less than one-fifth reported no WIL involvement (19%).

Looking at differences by age group, faculty 50 years or older were significantly more likely to have taught a course with a WIL component, while faculty below the age of 40 were significantly more likely not to be involved with WIL.

Table 21: Faculty WIL Involvement by Age Group Age Group Under 40 to 50 and 40 49 Older n=158 n=145 n=166 %

Teach course with WIL 13.9a 24.1a 36.7b

Level of WIL involvement Teach in program with WIL 57.0a 58.6a 51.2a

No WIL 29.1a 17.2b 12.0b

Female faculty were significantly more likely to have taught a course with a WIL component, while male faculty were significantly more likely to have taught in a program with WIL.

Table 22: Faculty WIL Involvement by Gender Gender Male Female n=308 n=144 %

Teach course with WIL 22.7a 31.9b Level of WIL involvement Teach in program with WIL 59.7a 45.1b No WIL 17.5a 22.9a

Faculty members’ level of involvement with WIL differs significantly by program group. While faculty in Math, Science, and Engineering were more likely to be involved in WIL in some way, their involvement

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 34

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

was primarily through teaching in a program with WIL. Faculty in Applied Health Sciences, Arts, and Environment were less involved in WIL overall but were more likely to teach a course with a WIL component.

Table 23: Faculty WIL Involvement by Program Group Program Group

Math, SCI, ENG AHS, Arts, ENV n=228 n=238 %

Teach course with WIL 18.4a 31.5b

Level of WIL involvement Teach in program with WIL 70.2a 41.2b

No WIL 11.4a 27.3b

Full-time faculty were significantly more likely to have taught in a program with a WIL component, while part-time faculty were significantly more likely to have no involvement with WIL.

Table 24: Faculty WIL Involvement by Employment Status Employment Status Full-time Part-time n=286 n=175 %

Teach course with WIL 24.8a 24.0a

Level of WIL involvement Teach in program with WIL 63.3a 43.4b

No WIL 11.9a 32.6b

Faculty with non-academic work experience were significantly more likely than faculty without such experience to have taught a course with WIL, but were less likely to have taught in a program with a WIL component and to have no WIL involvement.

Table 25: Faculty WIL Involvement by Non-Academic Work Experience Non-Academic Work Experience Yes No n=292 n=175 %

Teach course with WIL 31.6a 14.3b

Level of WIL involvement Teach in program with WIL 51.7a 61.7b

No WIL 16.1a 24.0b

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 35

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

What types of faculty members are more likely to integrate student learning with real-world work experiences?

Formal WIL opportunities are only one way in which postsecondary institutions and faculty connect learning with the world of work. Faculty survey participants were asked about the extent to which they participated in a range of other activities that integrate student learning with real-world work experiences. The results in the tables below show the mean frequency scores for the number of times, on average, that faculty perform a range of activities during a typical academic term.

Talking to students individually about their career goals and concerns is cited as the most frequent means of integrating student learning with real-world work experiences, followed closely by using business/community/workplace examples to illustrate concepts in class, and talking to students individually about their work experiences. (1=Never; 2=1-4 times; 3=6-10 times; 4=11-20 times; 5=More than 20 times) Table 26: Integrate Student Learning with Real-World Work Experiences Mean (n=456) Talk to students individually about their career goals/concerns 2.89 Use business/community/workplace examples to illustrate concepts in class 2.85 Talk to students individually about their work experiences 2.62 Use business/community/workplace case studies for student assignments 1.97 Invite students to share their work experiences with the class 1.84 Use authentic assessment strategies to assess students’ ability to perform real-world tasks 1.84 Design academic course content (readings, discussions) to integrate with students’ work experiences 1.80 Provide class time for students to reflect on their work experiences 1.52 Invite business, government, or community guest speakers into the classroom 1.52 Assign projects that require students to interact with local business, government or community organizations 1.51 Invite students to share their career goals with the class 1.48 Arrange job shadowing opportunities for students 1.23 Organize class visits to local business, government, or community workplaces 1.20

Three significant differences in the frequency with which faculty integrate student learning with real-world work experiences were found when comparing results by age. Faculty under the age of 40 were less likely than faculty between the ages of 40 and 49 to talk to students individually about their work experiences and to use authentic assessment strategies to assess students’ ability to perform real-world tasks. They were also less likely than faculty 50 years and older to assign projects that require students to interact with local business, government, or community organizations, and to organize class visits to these same types of establishments.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 36

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Never; 2=1-4 times; 3=6-10 times; 4=11-20 times; 5=More than 20 times) Table 27: Integrate Student Learning with Real-World Work Experiences by Age Group Age Group Under 50 and 40 40-49 Older n=158 n=120 n=166 Mean

Talk to students individually about their career goals/concerns 2.73a 3.02a 2.91a

Use business/community/workplace examples to illustrate concepts in class 2.75a 2.79a 2.98a

Talk to students individually about their work experiences 2.41a 2.76b 2.68a,b

Use business/community/workplace case studies for student assignments 1.90a 2.02a 1.99a

Invite students to share their work experiences with the class 1.68a 1.95a 1.90a Use authentic assessment strategies to assess students’ ability to perform real- world tasks 1.65a 1.99b 1.88a,b Design academic course content (readings, discussions) to integrate with students’ work experiences 1.65a 1.89a 1.85a

Provide class time for students to reflect on their work experiences 1.44a 1.59a 1.55a

Invite students to share their career goals with the class 1.41a 1.59a 1.45a Assign projects that require students to interact with local business, government or community organizations 1.35a 1.56a,b 1.61b

Invite business, government, or community guest speakers into the classroom 1.44a 1.54a 1.58a

Arrange job shadowing opportunities for students 1.16a 1.30a 1.24a

Organize class visits to local business, government, or community workplaces 1.10a 1.21a,b 1.29b

There are a number of significant differences in the degree to which faculty integrate student learning with real-world experiences by gender. Where significant differences were found, female faculty consistently reported higher mean scores than male faculty. For example, female faculty more frequently asked students to use business/community/workplace case studies for student assignments, and invited students to share their work experiences with the class more often than male faculty.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 37

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Never; 2=1-4 times; 3=6-10 times; 4=11-20 times; 5=More than 20 times) Table 28: Integrate Student Learning with Real-World Work Experiences by Gender Gender Male Female n=309 n=146 Mean

Talk to students individually about their career goals/concerns 2.87a 2.98a

Use business/community/workplace examples to illustrate concepts in class 2.85a 2.91a

Talk to students individually about their work experiences 2.59a 2.70a

Use business/community/workplace case studies for student assignments 1.89a 2.18b

Invite students to share their work experiences with the class 1.72a 2.14b

Use authentic assessment strategies to assess students’ ability to perform real-world tasks 1.79a 1.92a Design academic course content (readings, discussions) to integrate with students’ work experiences 1.75a 1.90a

Provide class time for students to reflect on their work experiences 1.42a 1.74b

Invite students to share their career goals with the class 1.41a 1.64b Assign projects that require students to interact with local business, government or community organizations 1.38a 1.78b

Invite business, government, or community guest speakers into the classroom 1.48a 1.63b

Arrange job shadowing opportunities for students 1.18a 1.34b

Organize class visits to local business, government, or community workplaces 1.19a 1.25a

While there was considerable variation in the degree to which faculty engaged in the activities listed by program group, faculty did not significantly differ in the time that they spent talking to students individually about their career goals and their work experiences.

When faculty do significantly differ by program group, those teaching in Applied Health Sciences, Arts, and Environment programs report more frequent engagement in the activities listed than faculty in Math, Science, and Engineering. There were, however, no significant differences in the three activities that were most often performed – talking to students individually about their career goals/concerns, using business/ community/workplace examines to illustrate concepts in class, and talking individually to students about their work experiences.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 38

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Never; 2=1-4 times; 3=6-10 times; 4=11-20 times; 5=More than 20 times) Table 29: Integrate Student Learning with Real-World Work Experiences by Program Group Program Group Math, SCI, AHS, Arts, ENG ENV n=229 n=240 Mean

Talk to students individually about their career goals/concerns 2.86a 2.91a

Use business/community/workplace examples to illustrate concepts in class 2.75a 2.94a

Talk to students individually about their work experiences 2.61a 2.63a

Use business/community/workplace case studies for student assignments 1.86a 2.07a

Invite students to share their work experiences with the class 1.62a 2.06b Use authentic assessment strategies to assess students’ ability to perform real-world tasks 1.72a 1.95b Design academic course content (readings, discussions) to integrate with students’ work experiences 1.66a 1.92b

Provide class time for students to reflect on their work experiences 1.33a 1.71b

Invite students to share their career goals with the class 1.30a 1.66b Assign projects that require students to interact with local business, government or community organizations 1.32a 1.68b

Invite business, government, or community guest speakers into the classroom 1.45a 1.60b

Arrange job shadowing opportunities for students 1.18a 1.27a

Organize class visits to local business, government, or community workplaces 1.18a 1.23a

There is only one statistically significant difference between full- and part-time faculty with respect to the activities used to integrate student learning with real-world work experiences: part-time faculty were slightly more likely to invite students to share their career goals with the class.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 39

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Never; 2=1-4 times; 3=6-10 times; 4=11-20 times; 5=More than 20 times) Table 30: Integrate Student Learning with Real-World Work Experiences by Employment Status Employment Status Full-time Part-time n=286 n=178 Mean

Talk to students individually about their career goals/concerns 2.91a 2.82a

Use business/community/workplace examples to illustrate concepts in class 2.84a 2.85a

Talk to students individually about their work experiences 2.57a 2.67a

Use business/community/workplace case studies for student assignments 1.99a 1.95a

Invite students to share their work experiences with the class 1.78a 1.92a Use authentic assessment strategies to assess students’ ability to perform real-world tasks 1.77a 1.94a Design academic course content (readings, discussions) to integrate with students’ work experiences 1.75a 1.87a

Provide class time for students to reflect on their work experiences 1.47a 1.60a

Invite students to share their career goals with the class 1.40a 1.58b Assign projects that require students to interact with local business, government or community organizations 1.48a 1.53a

Invite business, government, or community guest speakers into the classroom 1.54a 1.48a

Arrange job shadowing opportunities for students 1.20a 1.26a

Organize class visits to local business, government, or community workplaces 1.23a 1.17a

Faculty with non-academic work experience were significantly more likely than faculty without non- academic work experience to report much more frequent use of activities aimed to help integrate student learning with real-world work experiences. Arranging job shadowing opportunities for students – something rarely done by faculty – was the only task with no significant difference.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 40

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Never; 2=1-4 times; 3=6-10 times; 4=11-20 times; 5=More than 20 times) Table 31: Integrate Student Learning with Real-World Work Experiences by Non-Academic Work Experience Non-Academic Work Experience Yes No n=295 n=175 Mean

Talk to students individually about their career goals/concerns 3.00a 2.70b

Use business/community/workplace examples to illustrate concepts in class 3.19a 2.26b

Talk to students individually about their work experiences 2.81a 2.29b

Use business/community/workplace case studies for student assignments 2.15a 1.67b

Invite students to share their work experiences with the class 2.02a 1.54b Use authentic assessment strategies to assess students’ ability to perform real-world tasks 2.04a 1.49b Design academic course content (readings, discussions) to integrate with students’ work experiences 2.00a 1.45b

Provide class time for students to reflect on their work experiences 1.68a 1.26b

Invite students to share their career goals with the class 1.56a 1.36b Assign projects that require students to interact with local business, government or community organizations 1.66a 1.25b

Invite business, government, or community guest speakers into the classroom 1.67a 1.27b

Arrange job shadowing opportunities for students 1.27a 1.16a

Organize class visits to local business, government, or community workplaces 1.25a 1.13b

Compared to other faculty, faculty who taught a course with a WIL component reported more frequent use of all of the activities aimed to integrate student learning with real-world work experiences. In two instances, there were further significant differences between faculty who taught in a program with WIL and those with no WIL involvement, with faculty who taught in a program with WIL being more likely to talk to students individually about their career goals/concerns and to use business/community/workplace case studies to illustrate concepts in class.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 41

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Never; 2=1-4 times; 3=6-10 times; 4=11-20 times; 5=More than 20 times) Table 32: Integrate Student Learning with Real-World Work Experiences by WIL Involvement Level of WIL Involvement Teach in Teach Course program with WIL with WIL No WIL n=118 n=260 n=91 Mean

Talk to students individually about their career goals/concerns 3.23a 2.86b 2.50c Use business/community/workplace examples to illustrate concepts in class 3.46a 2.77b 2.24c

Talk to students individually about their work experiences 3.11a 2.52b 2.20b Use business/community/workplace case studies for student assignments 2.50a 1.85b 1.57b

Invite students to share their work experiences with the class 2.44a 1.63b 1.64b Use authentic assessment strategies to assess students’ ability to perform real-world tasks 2.42a 1.70b 1.46b Design academic course content (readings, discussions) to integrate with students’ work experiences 2.52a 1.53b 1.59b

Provide class time for students to reflect on their work experiences 2.15a 1.27b 1.43b

Invite students to share their career goals with the class 1.75a 1.36b 1.48b Assign projects that require students to interact with local business, government or community organizations 2.14a 1.26b 1.38b Invite business, government, or community guest speakers into the classroom 1.91a 1.42b 1.30b

Arrange job shadowing opportunities for students 1.53a 1.14b 1.08b Organize class visits to local business, government, or community workplaces 1.44a 1.13b 1.10b

Faculty who participated in WIL when they themselves were students again reported greater use of the activities aimed at integrating student learning with real-world work experiences. For example, faculty who participated in WIL when they were students were significantly more likely to use business/community/workplace examples and case studies to illustrate concepts in class and for student assignments.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 42

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Never; 2=1-4 times; 3=6-10 times; 4=11-20 times; 5=more than 20 times) Table 33: Integrate Student Learning with Real-World Work Experiences by Student Participation in WIL Participated in WIL as a Student Yes No n=240 n=228 Mean

Talk to students individually about their career goals/concerns 2.90a 2.87a

Use business/community/workplace examples to illustrate concepts in class 3.15a 2.54b

Talk to students individually about their work experiences 2.72a 2.50b

Use business/community/workplace case studies for student assignments 2.15a 1.79b

Invite students to share their work experiences with the class 1.98a 1.70b Use authentic assessment strategies to assess students’ ability to perform real-world tasks 1.96a 1.70b Design academic course content (readings, discussions) to integrate with students’ work experiences 1.94a 1.65b

Provide class time for students to reflect on their work experiences 1.62a 1.43b

Invite students to share their career goals with the class 1.51a 1.45a Assign projects that require students to interact with local business, government or community organizations 1.62a 1.39b

Invite business, government, or community guest speakers into the classroom 1.56a 1.48a

Arrange job shadowing opportunities for students 1.32a 1.14b

Organize class visits to local business, government, or community workplaces 1.22a 1.18a

What is the impact on faculty members’ workloads of teaching a course with a WIL component? To explore the workload implications of delivering WIL, faculty respondents who taught a course in which students participate in WIL were presented with a list of 17 different WIL-related activities and asked which of the activities they carried out while delivering WIL. For each activity performed, faculty respondents could indicate whether they performed the activity in addition to or as part of their regular duties, or not at all. In general, the majority of the activities in

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 43

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Table 34 were either not required of faculty or were already part of their regular duties, suggesting that faculty workloads were not substantially impacted by teaching a course with a WIL component. More than one-third of faculty who taught a course with a WIL component reported that providing career/employment counseling or mentoring students was required in addition to their regular duties. Between one-fifth and one-quarter of faculty reported developing WIL-related curricula or course content, establishing WIL-student learning objectives, recruiting WIL partners/host sites, and completing paperwork and documentation specific to WIL contracts as additional to their regular duties.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 44

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Table 34: Impact of WIL on Faculty Workloads Impact on Workload n=114 Part of regular Addition to Did not do this duties regular duties % Provided career/employment counseling or mentoring for students 33.1 30.5 36.4 Recruited WIL partners/host sites 52.2 23.5 24.3 Developed WIL-related curricula or course content 31.4 46.6 22.0 Managed relationships with host employers and community partners 48.7 29.4 21.8 Established WIL student learning objectives 28.8 50.8 20.3 Completed paperwork and documentation specific to WIL contracts 55.9 24.6 19.5 Prepared or oriented host employers and community partners 54.2 26.7 19.2 Prepared WIL-related lectures, tutorials, workshops 34.5 48.7 16.8 Gathered feedback from employers/community partners on their experience with WIL students 52.5 31.4 16.1 Gathered feedback from students on the quality of their WIL experience 35.6 49.2 15.3 Prepared or oriented students into industry/sector 46.7 39.2 14.2 Evaluated students’ WIL-related classroom assignments 35.3 52.1 12.6 Assessed students for their workplace activities 47.1 40.3 12.6 Supervised/interacted with WIL administrative staff/coordinators 52.1 35.3 12.6 Coordinated risk management and insurance details 76.7 15.5 7.8 Conducted site visits and monitored students in the workplace 76.1 17.9 6.0 Provided training and support for employers/site supervisors 78.0 16.1 5.9

Are there significant socio-demographic differences? Three statistically significant differences were found when comparing the impact of WIL on faculty workloads by age group. Faculty between 40 and 49 years of age were more likely than faculty 50 years and older to report providing career/employment counseling or mentoring for students and coordinating risk management and insurance details as additional duties. Faculty 50 years and older were more likely to report completing paperwork and documentation specific to WIL contracts as part of their regular duties when compared to faculty between the ages of 40 and 49.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 45

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Table 35: Impact of WIL on Workloads by Age Group Age Group 50 and Under 40 40 to 49 Older % n % n % n Did not do this 40.0 8 24.2 8 37.3 22 Provided career/employment counseling or a a a Part of regular duties 20.0 4 18.2 6 39.0 23 mentoring for students a a a Addition to reg duties 40.0a,b 8 57.6a 19 23.7b 14 Did not do this 55.6a 10 56.2a 18 45.8a 27 Recruited WIL partners/host sites Part of regular duties 22.2a 4 12.5a 4 32.2a 19 Addition to reg duties 22.2a 4 31.2a 10 22.0a 13 Did not do this 38.1 8 33.3 11 25.9 15 Developed WIL-related curricula or course a a a Part of regular duties 42.9 9 36.4 12 55.2 32 content a a a Addition to reg duties 19.0a 4 30.3a 10 19.0a 11 Did not do this 57.1 12 39.4 13 45.8 27 Managed relationships with host employers a a a Part of regular duties 23.8 5 27.3 9 35.6 21 and community partners a a a Addition to reg duties 19.0a 4 33.3a 11 18.6a 11 Did not do this 42.9a 9 31.2a 10 20.3a 12 Established WIL student learning objectives Part of regular duties 33.3a 7 43.8a 14 62.7a 37 Addition to reg duties 23.8a 5 25.0a 8 16.9a 10 Did not do this 52.4 11 56.2 18 52.5 31 Completed paperwork and documentation a a a Part of regular duties 28.6 6 9.4 3 33.9 20 specific to WIL contracts a,b a b Addition to reg duties 19.0a 4 34.4a 11 13.6a 8 Did not do this 71.4 15 54.5 18 45.0 27 Prepared or oriented host employers and a a a Part of regular duties 14.3 3 24.2 8 35.0 21 community partners a a a Addition to reg duties 14.3a 3 21.2a 7 20.0a 12 Did not do this 33.3 7 34.4 11 35.0 21 Prepared WIL-related lectures, tutorials, a a a Part of regular duties 38.1 8 40.6 13 56.7 34 workshops a a a Addition to reg duties 28.6a 6 25.0a 8 8.3a 5 Gathered feedback from Did not do this 61.9a 13 54.5a 18 44.8a 26 employers/community partners on their Part of regular duties 28.6a 6 27.3a 9 37.9a 22 experience with WIL students Addition to reg duties 9.5a 2 18.2a 6 17.2a 10 Did not do this 47.6 10 36.4 12 25.9 15 Gathered feedback from students on the a a a Part of regular duties 47.6 10 39.4 13 60.3 35 quality of their WIL experience a a a Addition to reg duties 4.8a 1 24.2a 8 13.8a 8 Did not do this 42.9 9 37.5 12 49.2 30 Prepared or oriented students into a a a Part of regular duties 42.9 9 37.5 12 41.0 25 industry/sector a a a Addition to reg duties 14.3a 3 25.0a 8 9.8a 6 Did not do this 42.9 9 32.4 11 31.0 18 Evaluated students’ WIL-related classroom a a a Part of regular duties 42.9 9 50.0 17 60.3 35 assignments a a a Addition to reg duties 14.3a 3 17.6a 6 8.6a 5 Did not do this 65.0 13 47.1 16 39.0 23 Assessed students for their workplace a a a Part of regular duties 25.0 5 35.3 12 49.2 29 activities a a a Addition to reg duties 10.0a 2 17.6a 6 11.9a 7 Did not do this 71.4 15 48.5 16 49.2 29 Supervised/interacted with WIL a a a Part of regular duties 23.8 5 33.3 11 40.7 24 administrative staff/coordinators a a a Addition to reg duties 4.8a 1 18.2a 6 10.2a 6 Did not do this 81.0 17 65.6 21 78.9 45 Coordinated risk management and a a a Part of regular duties 14.3 3 15.6 5 17.5 10 insurance details a a a Addition to reg duties 4.8a,b 1 18.8a 6 3.5b 2 Did not do this 76.2 16 69.7 23 77.6 45 Conducted site visits and monitored a a a Part of regular duties 19.0 4 18.2 6 19.0 11 students in the workplace a a a Addition to reg duties 4.8a 1 12.1a 4 3.4a 2 Did not do this 76.2 16 63.6 21 84.5 49 Provided training and support for a a a Part of regular duties 9.5a 2 24.2a 8 15.5a 9 employers/site supervisors 1 Addition to reg duties 14.3a 3 12.1a 4 0.0 0 1. This category is not used in comparisons because its column proportion is equal to zero or one.

There were only three significant differences in the impact of WIL on faculty members’ workloads when results were compared by gender. Female faculty were more likely to indicate that recruiting WIL partners

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 46

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

and host sites was an additional duty associated with teaching a course with WIL, as was evaluating students’ WIL-related classroom assignments. Male faculty were more likely to indicate that they did not provide any industry or sector orientation for their students. Table 36: Impact of WIL on Faculty Workloads by Gender Gender Male Female % n % n Did not do this 32.8a 21 37.0a 17 Provided career/employment counseling or mentoring Part of regular duties 37.5 24 15.2 7 for students a b Addition to reg duties 29.7a 19 47.8a 22 Did not do this 55.6a 35 43.2a 19 Recruited WIL partners/host sites Part of regular duties 27.0a 17 20.5a 9 Addition to reg duties 17.5a 11 36.4b 16 Did not do this 32.8a 21 26.1a 12 Developed WIL-related curricula or course content Part of regular duties 48.4a 31 45.7a 21 Addition to reg duties 18.8a 12 28.3a 13 Did not do this 49.2a 32 43.5a 20 Managed relationships with host employers and Part of regular duties 32.3 21 28.3 13 community partners a a Addition to reg duties 18.5a 12 28.3a 13 Did not do this 28.1a 18 26.1a 12 Established WIL student learning objectives Part of regular duties 51.6a 33 52.2a 24 Addition to reg duties 20.3a 13 21.7a 10 Did not do this 54.7a 35 50.0a 23 Completed paperwork and documentation specific to Part of regular duties 26.6 17 26.1 12 WIL contracts a a Addition to reg duties 18.8a 12 23.9a 11 Did not do this 51.5 34 54.3 25 Prepared or oriented host employers and community a a Part of regular duties 31.8a 21 21.7a 10 partners Addition to reg duties 16.7a 11 23.9a 11 Did not do this 32.3a 21 37.0a 17 Prepared WIL-related lectures, tutorials, workshops Part of regular duties 55.4a 36 39.1a 18 Addition to reg duties 12.3a 8 23.9a 11 Did not do this 56.9a 37 44.4a 20 Gathered feedback from employers/community Part of regular duties 30.8 20 35.6 16 partners on their experience with WIL students a a Addition to reg duties 12.3a 8 20.0a 9 Did not do this 32.8a 21 34.8a 16 Gathered feedback from students on the quality of Part of regular duties 56.2 36 45.7 21 their WIL experience a a Addition to reg duties 10.9a 7 19.6a 9 Did not do this 52.2a 35 33.3b 15 Prepared or oriented students into industry/sector Part of regular duties 34.3a 23 48.9a 22 Addition to reg duties 13.4a 9 17.8a 8 Did not do this 39.4 26 26.7 12 Evaluated students’ WIL-related classroom a a Part of regular duties 54.5a 36 53.3a 24 assignments Addition to reg duties 6.1a 4 20.0b 9 Did not do this 42.4a 28 53.3a 24 Assessed students for their workplace activities Part of regular duties 42.4a 28 37.8a 17 Addition to reg duties 15.2a 10 8.9a 4 Did not do this 52.3a 34 54.3a 25 Supervised/interacted with WIL administrative Part of regular duties 40.0 26 28.3 13 staff/coordinators a a Addition to reg duties 7.7a 5 17.4a 8 Did not do this 81.0a 51 68.9a 31 Coordinated risk management and insurance details Part of regular duties 12.7a 8 20.0a 9 Addition to reg duties 6.3a 4 11.1a 5 Did not do this 75.4a 49 75.6a 34 Conducted site visits and monitored students in the Part of regular duties 18.5 12 17.8 8 workplace a a Addition to reg duties 6.2a 4 6.7a 3 Did not do this 75.4a 49 82.2a 37 Provided training and support for employers/site Part of regular duties 20.0 13 11.1 5 supervisors a a Addition to reg duties 4.6a 3 6.7a 3

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 47

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

There are a handful of statistically significant differences between faculty members based on program group. Faculty in Applied Health Sciences, Arts, and Environment were more likely than faculty in Math, Science, and Engineering to report that they did not provide career counselling for students. Math, Science, and Engineering faculty were more likely to report that they did not gather feedback from employers/community partners on their experience with WIL students, or from students on the quality of their WIL experience. This is likely a reflection of the different level of WIL involvement predominant in each faculty group that was reported earlier. Recall that Math, Science, and Engineering faculty were more likely to have taught in a program with a WIL component, while Applied Health Science, Arts, and Environment faculty were more likely to have taught a course with WIL. Table 37: Impact of WIL on Faculty Workloads by Program Group Program Group Math, SCI, AHS, Arts, ENG ENV n=40 n=78 % Did not do this 20.5 39.0 Provided career/employment counseling or mentoring for a b Part of regular duties 38.5 26.0 students a a Addition to reg duties 41.0a 35.1a Did not do this 57.9a 48.0a Recruited WIL partners/host sites Part of regular duties 21.1a 25.3a Addition to reg duties 21.1a 26.7a Did not do this 40.0a 25.0a Developed WIL-related curricula or course content Part of regular duties 45.0a 48.7a Addition to reg duties 15.0a 26.3a Did not do this 55.0 44.2 Managed relationships with host employers and community a a Part of regular duties 20.0 35.1 partners a a Addition to reg duties 25.0a 20.8a Did not do this 33.3a 26.0a Established WIL student learning objectives Part of regular duties 46.2a 53.2a Addition to reg duties 20.5a 20.8a Did not do this 56.4 54.5 Completed paperwork and documentation specific to WIL a a Part of regular duties 17.9 28.6 contracts a a Addition to reg duties 25.6a 16.9a Did not do this 55.0 52.6 Prepared or oriented host employers and community a a Part of regular duties 20.0 30.8 partners a a Addition to reg duties 25.0a 16.7a Did not do this 38.5a 32.1a Prepared WIL-related lectures, tutorials, workshops Part of regular duties 48.7a 48.7a Addition to reg duties 12.8a 19.2a Did not do this 69.2 42.9 Gathered feedback from employers/community partners on a b Part of regular duties 20.5 37.7 their experience with WIL students a a Addition to reg duties 10.3a 19.5a Did not do this 48.7 27.3 Gathered feedback from students on the quality of their WIL a b Part of regular duties 43.6 53.2 experience a a Addition to reg duties 7.7a 19.5a Did not do this 50.0a 43.6a Prepared or oriented students into industry/sector Part of regular duties 35.0a 42.3a Addition to reg duties 15.0a 14.1a Did not do this 45.0a 28.6a Evaluated students’ WIL-related classroom assignments Part of regular duties 42.5a 58.4a Addition to reg duties 12.5a 13.0a Assessed students for their workplace activities Did not do this 53.7a 42.1a

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 48

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Part of regular duties 34.1a 44.7a Addition to reg duties 12.2a 13.2a Did not do this 55.0 49.4 Supervised/interacted with WIL administrative a a Part of regular duties 35.0 36.4 staff/coordinators a a Addition to reg duties 10.0a 14.3a Did not do this 82.1a 73.3a Coordinated risk management and insurance details Part of regular duties 12.8a 17.3a Addition to reg duties 5.1a 9.3a Did not do this 74.4 76.3 Conducted site visits and monitored students in the a a Part of regular duties 20.5 17.1 workplace a a Addition to reg duties 5.1a 6.6a Did not do this 85.0a 73.7a Provided training and support for employers/site supervisors Part of regular duties 7.5a 21.1a Addition to reg duties 7.5a 5.3a

Faculty perspectives concerning the impact of WIL on workloads vary little by employment status. However, full-time faculty were more likely to indicate that recruiting WIL partners and host sites was an additional duty, as was preparing or orienting host employers and community partners.

Table 38: Impact of WIL on Workloads by Employment Status Employment Status Full-time Part-time % n % n Did not do this 32.8 22 30.0 12 Provided career/employment counseling or mentoring for a a Part of regular duties 32.8 22 25.0 10 students a a Addition to reg duties 34.3a 23 45.0a 18 Did not do this 46.2a 30 56.4a 22 Recruited WIL partners/host sites Part of regular duties 21.5a 14 33.3a 13 Addition to reg duties 32.3a 21 10.3b 4 Did not do this 25.4a 17 37.5a 15 Developed WIL-related curricula or course content Part of regular duties 53.7a 36 40.0a 16 Addition to reg duties 20.9a 14 22.5a 9 Did not do this 42.6 29 50.0 20 Managed relationships with host employers and a a Part of regular duties 29.4 20 35.0 14 community partners a a Addition to reg duties 27.9a 19 15.0a 6 Did not do this 22.4a 15 35.0a 14 Established WIL student learning objectives Part of regular duties 59.7a 40 42.5a 17 Addition to reg duties 17.9a 12 22.5a 9 Did not do this 47.8 32 57.5 23 Completed paperwork and documentation specific to WIL a a Part of regular duties 29.9 20 22.5 9 contracts a a Addition to reg duties 22.4a 15 20.0a 8 Did not do this 47.8 33 57.5 23 Prepared or oriented host employers and community a a Part of regular duties 24.6 17 35.0 14 partners a a Addition to reg duties 27.5a 19 7.5b 3 Did not do this 29.4a 20 37.5a 15 Prepared WIL-related lectures, tutorials, workshops Part of regular duties 50.0a 34 52.5a 21 Addition to reg duties 20.6a 14 10.0a 4 Did not do this 46.3 31 57.5 23 Gathered feedback from employers/community partners a a Part of regular duties 35.8 24 30.0 12 on their experience with WIL students a a Addition to reg duties 17.9a 12 12.5a 5 Did not do this 29.4 20 38.5 15 Gathered feedback from students on the quality of their a a Part of regular duties 55.9 38 46.2 18 WIL experience a a Addition to reg duties 14.7a 10 15.4a 6

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 49

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Did not do this 46.4a 32 40.0a 16 Prepared or oriented students into industry/sector Part of regular duties 39.1a 27 45.0a 18 Addition to reg duties 14.5a 10 15.0a 6 Did not do this 26.5a 18 42.5a 17 Evaluated students’ WIL-related classroom assignments Part of regular duties 61.8a 42 45.0a 18 Addition to reg duties 11.8a 8 12.5a 5 Did not do this 42.6a 29 50.0a 20 Assessed students for their workplace activities Part of regular duties 45.6a 31 35.0a 14 Addition to reg duties 11.8a 8 15.0a 6 Did not do this 54.4 37 47.5 19 Supervised/interacted with WIL administrative a a Part of regular duties 29.4 20 47.5 19 staff/coordinators a a Addition to reg duties 16.2a 11 5.0a 2 Did not do this 74.2a 49 76.9a 30 Coordinated risk management and insurance details Part of regular duties 16.7a 11 17.9a 7 Addition to reg duties 9.1a 6 5.1a 2 Did not do this 73.1 49 77.5 31 Conducted site visits and monitored students in the a a Part of regular duties 20.9 14 17.5 7 workplace a a Addition to reg duties 6.0a 4 5.0a 2 Did not do this 80.6 54 70.0 28 Provided training and support for employers/site a a Part of regular duties 11.9 8 25.0 10 supervisors a a Addition to reg duties 7.5a 5 5.0a 2

There were few differences in the impact of WIL on faculty workloads when non-academic work experience was taken into account. However, faculty without non-academic work experience were more likely to report that they did not develop WIL-related course content, while faculty with non-academic work experience were more likely to report that they did this as part of their regular duties. Faculty without non- academic work experience were less likely to establish WIL student learning objectives, to prepare WIL- related lectures, tutorials, and workshops, and to provide training and support for employers/site supervisors.

Table 39: Impact of WIL on Workloads by Non-Academic Work Experience Non-Academic Work Experience Yes No % n % n Did not do this 29.5 26 50.0 12 Provided career/employment counseling or a a Part of regular duties 30.7 27 25.0 6 mentoring for students a a Addition to reg duties 39.8a 35 25.0a 6 Did not do this 50.0a 43 52.2a 12 Recruited WIL partners/host sites Part of regular duties 25.6a 22 21.7a 5 Addition to reg duties 24.4a 21 26.1a 6 Did not do this 22.7 20 58.3 14 Developed WIL-related curricula or course a b Part of regular duties 53.4 47 25.0 6 content a b Addition to reg duties 23.9a 21 16.7a 4 Did not do this 43.8 39 54.2 13 Managed relationships with host employers a a Part of regular duties 32.6 29 25.0 6 and community partners a a Addition to reg duties 23.6a 21 20.8a 5 Did not do this 22.7a 20 45.8b 11 Established WIL student learning objectives Part of regular duties 54.5a 48 41.7a 10 Addition to reg duties 22.7a 20 12.5a 3 Did not do this 53.4 47 54.2 13 Completed paperwork and documentation a a Part of regular duties 25.0 22 29.2 7 specific to WIL contracts a a Addition to reg duties 21.6a 19 16.7a 4 Prepared or oriented host employers and Did not do this 51.7a 46 56.0a 14

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 50

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

community partners Part of regular duties 29.2a 26 24.0a 6 Addition to reg duties 19.1a 17 20.0a 5 Did not do this 28.1 25 58.3 14 Prepared WIL-related lectures, tutorials, a b Part of regular duties 52.8 47 33.3 8 workshops a a Addition to reg duties 19.1a 17 8.3a 2 Gathered feedback from employers/ Did not do this 47.7a 42 62.5a 15 community partners on their experience with Part of regular duties 36.4a 32 20.8a 5 WIL students Addition to reg duties 15.9a 14 16.7a 4 Did not do this 28.7 25 48.0 12 Gathered feedback from students on the a a Part of regular duties 55.2 48 40.0 10 quality of their WIL experience a a Addition to reg duties 16.1a 14 12.0a 3 Did not do this 41.6 37 56.0 14 Prepared or oriented students into a a Part of regular duties 43.8 39 28.0 7 industry/sector a a Addition to reg duties 14.6a 13 16.0a 4 Did not do this 30.3 27 45.8 11 Evaluated students’ WIL-related classroom a a Part of regular duties 57.3 51 41.7 10 assignments a a Addition to reg duties 12.4a 11 12.5a 3 Did not do this 47.8 43 39.1 9 Assessed students for their workplace a a Part of regular duties 40.0 36 43.5 10 activities a a Addition to reg duties 12.2a 11 17.4a 4 Did not do this 52.8a 47 54.2a 13 Supervised/interacted with WIL administrative Part of regular duties 37.1 33 29.2 7 staff/coordinators a a Addition to reg duties 10.1a 9 16.7a 4 Did not do this 76.7 66 70.8 17 Coordinated risk management and insurance a a Part of regular duties 17.4 15 12.5 3 details a a Addition to reg duties 5.8a 5 16.7a 4 Did not do this 73.9 65 79.2 19 Conducted site visits and monitored students a a Part of regular duties 20.5 18 12.5 3 in the workplace a a Addition to reg duties 5.7a 5 8.3a 2 Did not do this 71.6a 63 95.8b 23 Provided training and support for 1 Part of regular duties 21.6 19 0.0 0 employers/site supervisors a Addition to reg duties 6.8a 6 4.2a 1 1. This category is not used in comparisons because its column proportion is equal to zero or one.

What are faculty members’ opinions about the purposes of PSE and the degree to which they contribute to these purposes? Faculty were provided with 19 statements about the purposes of PSE – addressing student knowledge, skills, and personal development – and were asked to indicate the extent to which their teaching is intended to contribute to those areas. Generally speaking, faculty indicated that most aspects were somewhat addressed through their teaching. Faculty considered thinking critically and analytically to be very much a purpose of PSE and something they try to foster with their teaching, followed by working independently and applying skills and knowledge in different situations. Focusing on aspects of teaching meant to contribute to career development, it is seen that teaching objectives tend to cluster in the middle of the distribution with solving complex, real-world problems, acquiring job-related knowledge and skills, and working effectively with others viewed by faculty as being somewhat addressed through their teaching. Securing relevant work after graduation, the final PSE purpose related to career development, was considered to be less than somewhat addressed by faculty through their teaching.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 51

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Not at all; 2=Very little; 3=Somewhat; 4=Very much) Table 40: Faculty Perceptions of the Purposes of PSE Mean Thinking critically and analytically 3.87 Working independently 3.55 Applying skills and knowledge in different situations 3.55 Writing clearly and effectively 3.48 Solving complex, real-world problems 3.41 Becoming lifelong learners 3.39 Using data to analyze problems 3.31 Acquiring job-related or work-related knowledge and skills 3.20 Speaking clearly and effectively 3.19 Acquiring a broad general education 3.14 Working effectively with others 3.13 Developing a personal code of ethics and values 2.93 Securing relevant work after graduation 2.86 Understanding themselves 2.77 Contributing to the welfare of their community 2.73 Using computing and information technology 2.66 Developing leadership skills 2.66 Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds 2.47 Participating as informed voters in local, provincial, and federal elections 1.92

Do opinions about the purposes of PSE and the degree to which faculty contribute to them differ socio- demographically? Age plays somewhat of a mediating role in faculty members’ opinions about the purposes of PSE and the goals of their teaching. Most of the significant differences found were between faculty below the age of 40 and faculty aged 50 years or older. For example, older faculty were more likely to indicate that their teaching attempts to develop a personal code of ethics in students and to enable them to work effectively with others. Faculty under the age of 40 were less likely than all other faculty to view their teaching as being intended to develop students in contributing to the welfare of their community.

Drawing attention to career-related aspects, faculty under the age of 40 were less likely than faculty 50 years and older to contribute to student development in the areas of working effectively with others and securing relevant work after graduation. They were also less likely than all faculty 40 years and older to report that their teaching is intended to develop students’ ability to solve complex, real-world problems.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 52

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Not at all; 2=Very little; 3=Somewhat; 4=Very much) Table 41: Faculty Perceptions of the Purposes of PSE by Age Group Age Group Under 40 40 to 49 50 and Older n=158 n=148 n=166 Mean

Thinking critically and analytically 3.88a 3.86a 3.86a

Working independently 3.54a 3.56a 3.55a

Applying skills and knowledge in different situations 3.49a 3.61a 3.57a

Writing clearly and effectively 3.53a 3.40a 3.49a

Solving complex, real-world problems 3.22a 3.54b 3.46b

Becoming lifelong learners 3.34a 3.41a 3.43a

Using data to analyze problems 3.19a 3.28a,b 3.45b

Acquiring job-related or work-related knowledge and skills 3.08a 3.23a 3.27a

Speaking clearly and effectively 3.14a 3.23a 3.20a

Acquiring a broad general education 3.06a 3.15a 3.21a

Working effectively with others 2.96a 3.19a,b 3.24b

Developing a personal code of ethics and values 2.73a 2.89a,b 3.15b

Securing relevant work after graduation 2.71a 2.88a,b 2.99b

Understanding themselves 2.62a 2.81a 2.88a

Contributing to the welfare of their community 2.49a 2.78b 2.93b

Using computing and information technology 2.65a 2.68a 2.66a

Developing leadership skills 2.49a 2.73a,b 2.76b

Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds 2.31a 2.55a 2.57a

Participating as informed voters in local, provincial, and federal elections 1.83a 1.91a 2.01a

Male and female faculty tend to differ in their opinions about how their teaching should contribute to student development. When significant differences were found, female faculty tended to indicate that their teaching is intended to contribute to student development to a greater extent than male faculty. This is especially true for developing a personal code of ethics and values, understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds, and participating as informed voters. Male faculty were more likely to indicate that their teaching is intended to contribute to student development in using data to analyze problems and using computing and IT. Focusing only on aspects related to career development, male faculty were more likely to report that their teaching is intended to contribute to student development in solving complex, real-world problems and securing relevant work after graduation.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 53

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Not at all; 2=Very little; 3=Somewhat; 4=Very much) Table 42: Faculty Perceptions of the Purpose of PSE by Gender Gender Male Female n=309 n=146 Mean

Thinking critically and analytically 3.85a 3.89a

Working independently 3.50a 3.62a

Applying skills and knowledge in different situations 3.49a 3.68b

Writing clearly and effectively 3.37a 3.68b

Solving complex, real-world problems 3.48a 3.24b

Becoming lifelong learners 3.29a 3.58b

Using data to analyze problems 3.38a 3.17b

Acquiring job-related or work-related knowledge and skills 3.20a 3.20a

Speaking clearly and effectively 3.11a 3.32b

Acquiring a broad general education 3.11a 3.20a

Working effectively with others 3.08a 3.25a

Developing a personal code of ethics and values 2.85a 3.08b

Securing relevant work after graduation 2.92a 2.73b

Understanding themselves 2.63a 3.06b

Contributing to the welfare of their community 2.66a 2.85a

Using computing and information technology 2.76a 2.45b

Developing leadership skills 2.58a 2.84b

Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds 2.28a 2.87b

Participating as informed voters in local, provincial, and federal elections 1.85a 2.08b

There were a number of significant differences in faculty perceptions when examined according to the program group in which faculty teach. In most cases, these differences fall along traditional program lines. For example, faculty in Math, Science, and Engineering ascribed a greater level of importance to using data to analyze problems and using computing and IT, while faculty in Applied Health Sciences, Arts, and Environment were more likely to indicate that writing clearly and effectively and acquiring a broad general education were purposes of PSE and goals of their teaching. There was, however, general agreement among faculty about the three skills they most tried to develop in students with their teaching: thinking critically and analytically, applying skills and knowledge in different situations, and working independently. By program group, faculty differ significantly in the extent to which their teaching is intended to contribute to student development in career-related areas. Faculty in Applied Health Science, Arts, and Environment were more likely to report that their teaching is intended to develop in students the skills needed to work effectively with others, while Math, Science, and Engineering faculty were more likely to report that their teaching attempts to help students secure relevant work after graduation.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 54

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Not at all; 2=Very little; 3=Somewhat; 4=Very much) Table 43: Faculty Perceptions of the Purposes of PSE by Program Group Program Group Math, SCI, ENG AHS, Arts, ENV

n=229 n=240 Mean

Thinking critically and analytically 3.85a 3.88a

Applying skills and knowledge in different situations 3.50a 3.60a

Working independently 3.53a 3.57a

Writing clearly and effectively 3.23a 3.70b

Solving complex, real-world problems 3.44a 3.37a

Becoming lifelong learners 3.29a 3.49b

Using data to analyze problems 3.53a 3.12b

Acquiring job-related or work-related knowledge and skills 3.17a 3.23a

Speaking clearly and effectively 2.95a 3.41b

Acquiring a broad general education 2.99a 3.29b

Working effectively with others 3.04a 3.22b

Developing a personal code of ethics and values 2.69a 3.14b

Securing relevant work after graduation 2.99a 2.74b

Understanding themselves 2.24a 3.26b

Contributing to the welfare of their community 2.48a 2.97b

Using computing and information technology 3.00a 2.34b

Developing leadership skills 2.45a 2.84b

Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds 1.86a 3.04b

Participating as informed voters in local, provincial, and federal elections 1.59a 2.22b

Analysis of faculty results by employment status show that full-time faculty were more likely than part-time faculty to indicate that their teaching attempts to develop critical and analytical thinking skills and an ability to work independently – two of the most highly-valued purposes of PSE among all faculty respondents. Some additional significant differences were noted between full-time and part-time faculty, with full-time faculty being more likely to perceive writing and speaking clearly and using data as purposes of PSE and goals of their teaching. When focusing on career-related aspects, there was only one statistically significant difference between faculty based on their employment status. Part-time faculty were less likely to report that their teaching is intended to contribute to students securing relevant work after graduation.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 55

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Not at all; 2=Very little; 3=Somewhat; 4=Very much) Table 44: Faculty Perceptions of the Purposes of PSE by Employment Status Employment Status Full-time Part-time n=286 n=178 Mean

Thinking critically and analytically 3.92a 3.78b

Working independently 3.60a 3.47b

Applying skills and knowledge in different situations 3.54a 3.59a

Writing clearly and effectively 3.53a 3.39b

Solving complex, real-world problems 3.42a 3.37a

Becoming lifelong learners 3.38a 3.41a

Using data to analyze problems 3.39a 3.19b

Acquiring job-related or work-related knowledge and skills 3.20a 3.20a

Speaking clearly and effectively 3.26a 3.08b

Acquiring a broad general education 3.17a 3.10a

Working effectively with others 3.14a 3.12a

Developing a personal code of ethics and values 2.90a 2.97a

Securing relevant work after graduation 2.94a 2.73b

Understanding themselves 2.71a 2.87a

Contributing to the welfare of their community 2.77a 2.67a

Using computing and information technology 2.72a 2.59a

Developing leadership skills 2.70a 2.59a

Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds 2.40a 2.57a

Participating as informed voters in local, provincial, and federal elections 1.91a 1.92a

There were several statistically significant differences between faculty perceptions of the purposes of PSE by non-academic work experience. In all but one instance – acquiring a broad general education – where significant differences were found, faculty with non-academic work experience were more likely to identify the skills listed as purposes of PSE and goals of their teaching. For example, faculty with non- academic work experience were more likely to report acquiring job-related knowledge and skills, working effectively with others, and developing a personal code of ethics and values as purposes of PSE and aspects they try to foster with their teaching.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 56

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Not at all; 2=Very little; 3=Somewhat; 4=Very much) Table 45: Faculty Perceptions of the Purposes of PSE by Non-Academic Work Experience Non-Academic Work Experience Yes No n=295 n=175 Mean

Thinking critically and analytically 3.86a 3.87a

Working independently 3.53a 3.58a

Applying skills and knowledge in different situations 3.61a 3.46b

Writing clearly and effectively 3.47a 3.48a

Solving complex, real-world problems 3.51a 3.23b

Becoming lifelong learners 3.42a 3.36a

Using data to analyze problems 3.40a 3.18b

Acquiring job-related or work-related knowledge and skills 3.35a 2.94b

Speaking clearly and effectively 3.20a 3.16a

Acquiring a broad general education 3.07a 3.26b

Working effectively with others 3.29a 2.87b

Developing a personal code of ethics and values 3.01a 2.78b

Securing relevant work after graduation 2.98a 2.66b

Understanding themselves 2.80a 2.72a

Contributing to the welfare of their community 2.85a 2.54b

Using computing and information technology 2.74a 2.53b

Developing leadership skills 2.79a 2.43b

Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds 2.47a 2.47a

Participating as informed voters in local, provincial, and federal elections 1.86a 2.02a

There were several statistically significant differences between faculty members based on their level of involvement with WIL, though the magnitude of these differences is minimal. Faculty who taught a course with WIL placed greater importance on developing students’ leadership skills and were also more likely than faculty who taught in a program with WIL to identify developing a personal code of ethics and contributing to the welfare of their community as purposes of PSE and goals of their teaching. Faculty with no WIL involvement placed somewhat less importance on solving complex, real-world problems and using data. Faculty significantly differed on all four aspects of PSE related to career development. Faculty with no WIL involvement were less likely than other faculty to indicate that their teaching is intended to contribute to student development in solving complex, real-world problems and securing relevant work after graduation. Faculty who taught a course with WIL were more likely to report that their teaching attempts to develop students in the areas of acquiring job-related knowledge and skills and working effectively with others.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 57

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Not at all; 2=Very little; 3=Somewhat; 4=Very much) Table 46: Faculty Perceptions of the Purposes of PSE by WIL Involvement Level of WIL Involvement Teach course Teach in program with WIL with WIL No WIL n=118 n=260 n=91 Mean

Thinking critically and analytically 3.87a 3.89a 3.79a

Applying skills and knowledge in different situations 3.69a 3.52a 3.47a

Working independently 3.50a,b 3.61a 3.42b

Writing clearly and effectively 3.56a 3.41a 3.54a

Solving complex, real-world problems 3.51a 3.45a 3.15b

Becoming lifelong learners 3.48a 3.36a 3.38a

Using data to analyze problems 3.39a 3.40a 2.97b

Acquiring job-related or work-related knowledge and skills 3.44a 3.14b 3.03b

Speaking clearly and effectively 3.28a 3.12a 3.29a

Acquiring a broad general education 2.98a 3.15a,b 3.33b

Working effectively with others 3.43a 3.04b 3.02b

Developing a personal code of ethics and values 3.16a 2.82b 2.92a,b

Securing relevant work after graduation 3.00a 2.89a 2.60b

Understanding themselves 2.91a 2.60b 3.06a

Contributing to the welfare of their community 2.99a 2.63b 2.71a,b

Using computing and information technology 2.61a,b 2.77a 2.41b

Developing leadership skills 3.00a 2.57b 2.49b

Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds 2.77a 2.19b 2.91a Participating as informed voters in local, provincial, and federal elections 1.95a,b 1.83a 2.13b

Differences between faculty members were also found based on their prior participation in WIL as students. Faculty who participated in WIL when they were students were more likely to indicate that solving complex problems, using data to analyze problems, acquiring work-related knowledge and skills, and securing relevant work after graduation are purposes of PSE and goals of their teaching. Faculty who did not participate in WIL as students placed greater importance on acquiring a broad general education and participating as informed voters. Similar to the results by level of WIL involvement, faculty differed significantly on all four aspects of PSE related to career development. Faculty who did not participate in WIL when they were students were consistently less likely to report that they try to address student development in areas related to career development.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 58

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Not at all; 2=Very little; 3=Somewhat; 4=Very much) Table 47: Faculty Perceptions of the Purposes of PSE by Participation in WIL as a Student Participated in WIL as a Student Yes No n=240 n=228 Mean

Thinking critically and analytically 3.87a 3.86a

Applying skills and knowledge in different situations 3.60a 3.51a

Working independently 3.58a 3.52a

Writing clearly and effectively 3.46a 3.50a

Solving complex, real-world problems 3.50a 3.30b

Becoming lifelong learners 3.35a 3.46a

Using data to analyze problems 3.43a 3.19b

Acquiring job-related or work-related knowledge and skills 3.38a 3.00b

Speaking clearly and effectively 3.13a 3.26a

Acquiring a broad general education 2.99a 3.30b

Working effectively with others 3.21a 3.04b

Developing a personal code of ethics and values 2.94a 2.90a

Securing relevant work after graduation 3.00a 2.72b

Understanding themselves 2.68a 2.86a

Contributing to the welfare of their community 2.80a 2.65a

Using computing and information technology 2.71a 2.61a

Developing leadership skills 2.73a 2.58a

Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds 2.40a 2.56a

Participating as informed voters in local, provincial, and federal elections 1.80a 2.04b

Were faculty members with WIL experience more likely to indicate that there should be more WIL in PSE? Throughout this report, WIL experience for faculty is measured by two factors: participation in WIL as a student, and teaching in a course or program with a WIL component. Prior to examining the differences in faculty perceptions about the amount of WIL in PSE by WIL experience, results for faculty as a whole are examined. Almost three-quarters of University of Waterloo faculty respondents supported increasing or maintaining the amount of WIL in PSE, with slightly greater support for keeping it the same. A very small proportion felt that the amount of WIL in PSE should be decreased, and more than one-fifth of University of Waterloo faculty were not sure. Table 48: Faculty Perceptions of the Amount of WIL in PSE n=457 % Increased 35.2 Decreased 4.8 Appropriate levels of WIL Kept about the same 37.2 Not sure 22.8

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 59

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Faculty members who taught courses with WIL were significantly more likely to indicate that the amount of WIL in PSE should be increased and were also less likely to support decreasing the amount of WIL in PSE. Non-WIL faculty members were significantly more likely than faculty who taught courses with WIL to indicate that they are unsure as to whether the amount of WIL in PSE should change. Table 49: Faculty Perceptions of the Amount of WIL in PSE by WIL Involvement Level of WIL Involvement

Teach course with WIL Teach in program with WIL No WIL n=115 n=255 n=85 %

Increased 52.2a 29.0b 29.4b Appropriate levels of WIL Decreased 0.9a 6.7b 4.7a,b Kept about the same 33.0a 40.8a 32.9a Not sure 13.9a 23.5a,b 32.9b

As may be expected, faculty members who participated in WIL as students were significantly more likely than those who did not participate in WIL as students to indicate that there should be more WIL in PSE. While very few faculty felt that the amount of WIL in PSE should be decreased, those who did not participate in WIL as students were more likely to support a decrease. Table 50: Faculty Perceptions of the Amount of WIL in PSE by Participation in WIL as a Student Participated in WIL as a Student Yes No n=233 n=221 %

Increased 41.2a 29.4b Decreased 1.7 8.1 Appropriate levels of WIL a b Kept about the same 37.3a 37.1a

Not sure 19.7a 25.3a

Employer Survey

Provincial Employer Survey The provincial-level study of Ontario employers revealed that the average length of employer participation in WIL was 11.4 years, with ten per cent indicating that they have provided WIL for more than 20 years. At the same time, many WIL employers are relatively recent, with close to 40 per cent indicating that they have been providing WIL for five years or less. Since January 2010, more than one-third of employer respondents have offered WIL to PSE students. Employers who no longer offer WIL were asked why they decided to discontinue providing workplace experiences for students. A lack of suitable work was by far the most common reason provided, followed by the recession or other economic pressures, and not being able to find students with the skills needed. Employers who did not plan to offer WIL were asked why they were not planning on doing so. Similar to employers who no longer offer WIL, the most common reason was a lack of suitable work, with approximately two-thirds indicating this as a reason, followed by a lack of students with the required skills and the staff time needed to recruit, train, and supervise students.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 60

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Employer respondents were also asked how participation in WIL could be facilitated. More than one-half of respondents indicated that providing financial incentives for employers would facilitate participation, and just under one-half of employers believed that providing more information for employers and scheduling student placements to meet business cycle needs would assist more employers to become involved.

Employer Survey In the past two years how many employers have provided WIL for students and for how long? The majority of employer respondents indicated that they did not provide WIL to university students in the past two years. The proportion of employers who provided other types of WIL was almost double the proportion of employers who provided co-op experiences for students.

Table 51: Number of Employers Providing WIL* % Unweighted n University co-op 6.1 350 University other WIL 11.8 579 Did not provide WIL to university students 79.2 2320 Don't know 3.0 120 *Includes only employers providing WIL to university students

More than one-third of both co-op and other WIL employers reported that their involvement with postsecondary WIL began within the last five years.8 On average, co-op employers reported slightly fewer years of involvement with WIL than other WIL employers.

8 The number of years WIL has been provided by employers cannot be narrowed down to include only university students as a result of the structure of the survey.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 61

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Figure 2: Percentage of Employers Providing WIL to University Students by Number of Years 45%

40% 39% 35% 35%

30% 5 years or less 26% 6-10 years 25% 22% 11-15 years 20% 16-20 years

15% 13% 13% 13% More than 20 years 9% DK/NR 10% 8% 9% 8% 6% 5%

0% Co-op Other WIL

Why have employers stopped offering WIL? Do reasons vary by company size? The majority of the 321 employers who used to provide WIL but have since discontinued their involvement were small companies. More than one-third employed less than ten employees, and approximately one-quarter had ten to 19 employees. By far the most common reason for no longer providing WIL was a lack of suitable work for students. This was followed by economic pressures, lack of students with the necessary skills, and the staff time involved in recruiting, training, and supervising students. In addition to selecting all the reasons for discontinuing their involvement, employers were asked their top reason for no longer providing WIL (Appendix A). The lack of suitable work for students was the top reason for more than one in five employers (22%), followed closely by the recession or other economic pressures (17%).

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 62

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Table 52: Reasons for No Longer Providing WIL % Unweighted n No suitable work for students 59.0 169 Recession or other economic pressures 38.5 155 Couldn’t get students with the skills needed 38.1 83 Staff time to recruit/train/supervise students 28.9 105 Professional, regulatory, or staffing issues 20.9 75 College/university stopped offering program 16.8 40 Negative experiences with previous students 15.7 44 Too much administration/paperwork 14.8 55 Change in business direction 13.9 58 Costs due to student errors/inexperience 10.4 37 Concern about competitors hiring trained students 5.0 13 Other 15.7 45 Don't know 1.4 9

On average, there was little variation in responses by company size. Employers with 20 to 49 employees were significantly more likely than employers with less than ten employees to indicate that they did not provide WIL to students because of professional, regulatory, or staffing issues and because of the staff time needed to recruit, train, and supervise students. Top reasons for no longer providing WIL also do not vary much by company size (Appendix A). Compared to others, large companies seem to have been affected to a greater extent by the recent recession, as they were more likely to cite economic pressures as their top reason for no longer providing WIL. Again, firms with 20 to 49 employees were more likely to discontinue their involvement because of professional, regulatory, or staffing issues. Firms with ten to 19 employees were twice as likely as other employers to identify the cancellation of the program by the postsecondary institution as their top reason for discontinuing their involvement with WIL.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 63

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Table 53: Reasons for No Longer Providing WIL by Company Size Company Size 2-9 10-19 20-49 50+ n=115 n=79 n=57 n=70 %

No suitable work for students 62.6a 58.1a 54.4a 50.5a

Recession or other economic pressures 39.0a 28.8a 49.9a 54.6a

Couldn’t get students with the skills needed 38.1a 46.4a 30.2a 20.0a

Staff time to recruit/train/supervise students 23.5a 32.2a,b 43.9b 21.6a,b

Professional, regulatory, or staffing issues 14.3a 18.5a 45.3b 25.8a,b

College/university stopped offering program 12.1a 24.4a 15.8a 15.4a

Negative experiences with previous students 15.9a 15.6a 14.1a 17.1a

Too much administration/paperwork 11.7a 18.0a 19.2a 12.8a

Change in business direction 14.0a 15.3a 7.9a 18.8a

Costs due to student errors/inexperience 6.9a 12.4a 16.0a 12.7a

Concern about competitors hiring trained students 2.5a 8.2a 7.0a 3.6a

Other 8.9a 23.0b 21.3a,b 15.2a,b

Don't know 1.2a 0.9a 2.2a 2.8a

Why do employers not offer WIL? Does this vary by company size or sector? Consistent with employers’ reasons for no longer offering WIL, a lack of suitable work was also the most frequently mentioned reason for employers not to participate at all in WIL. Close to one-third of employers mentioned the staff time needed to recruit, train, and supervise students and a lack of students with the skills required. More than one-quarter of employers were unaware of WIL programs, and just less than one-quarter cited professional, regulatory, or staffing issues, as well as financial concerns.

As may be expected, employers’ top reason for not offering WIL was a lack of suitable work, cited by more than one-third of employers (see Appendix A). About one in ten employers identified demands on staff time and lack of students with the right skills as the major barriers to their participation.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 64

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Table 54: Reasons for Not Offering WIL % Unweighted n No suitable work available 66.3 567 Staff time to recruit/train/supervise students 31.4 290 No students with the skills needed 31.4 274 Not aware of any such programs 27.3 188 Professional, regulatory, or staffing issues 22.9 229 Recession or other economic pressures 22.1 200 Too much administration/paperwork 19.2 158 Financial costs involved 16.8 174 Concern about competitors hiring trained students 4.6 36 Heard negative things from other employers 3.1 25 Other 3.9 33 Don't Know 4.3 39

There were a few significant differences between employers by company size concerning reasons for not offering WIL. Companies with ten to 19 employees were more likely to report not offering WIL because of a lack of suitable work. Companies with less than ten employees were significantly more likely than companies with ten to 19 employees to cite that they did not offer WIL because they were unaware of such programs and because of concerns about competitors hiring trained students. The most common top reason for not offering WIL by company size (Appendix A) was the lack of suitable work. This was a particular barrier for the smallest employers, but less of a barrier for firms with 20 to 49 employees. While the absence of students with the right skills was more likely to be mentioned as the main barrier by firms with ten to 19 employees, these firms were less likely to cite a lack of awareness of WIL programs. The smallest firms were the least affected by economic pressures and by paperwork burdens. Table 55: Reasons for Not Offering WIL by Company Size Company Size 2-9 10-19 20-49 50+ n=355 n=211 n=109 n=172 % No suitable work available 63.6a 75.5b 61.8a 56.0a Staff time to recruit/train/supervise students 30.3a 35.0a 27.7a 31.9a No students with the skills needed 34.1a 30.7a 24.0a 33.9a Not aware of any such programs 31.0a 22.0b 28.5a,b 24.4a,b Professional, regulatory, or staffing issues 22.6a 21.1a 24.6a 28.2a Recession or other economic pressures 19.9a 25.5a 20.8a 24.4a Too much administration/paperwork 16.1a 21.8a 23.2a 19.2a Financial costs involved 18.8a 17.1a 10.4a 16.2a Concern about competitors hiring trained students 6.5a 2.0b 3.0a,b 7.0a,b 1 Heard negative things from other employers 4.0a 3.3a 0.0 3.2a Other 3.2a 0.2b 11.7c 6.9a,c Don't know 4.7a 5.2a 1.2a 4.8a

There were a number of significant differences in employers’ reasons for not offering WIL by sector. Manufacturing sector employers were more likely than accommodation and food employers to cite a lack

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 65

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

of suitable work. Demands on staff time were a greater concern for employers from the professional services sector than the retail trades sector. Construction sector employers were more influenced by the lack of students with the right skills than employers in the manufacturing, professional, and retail trades sectors, and the financial costs involved in offering WIL were greater concerns for employers in the construction, manufacturing, and professional sectors than retail trades sector employers.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 66

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Table 56: Reasons for Not Offering WIL by Sector Sector Forestry, Arts, Mining, Accom/ Ent. & Finance Oil & Info & Prof Public Retail Food Civic Construction Ed. Gas Culture Manufacturing Sci. Admin. Trades Health n=73 n=30 n=82 n=28 n=139 n=91 n=73 n=124 n=102 n=25 n=66 n=34 % No suitable work 1 available 57.2a 79.9a,b 69.6a,b 57.1a,b 67.0a,b 74.6a,b 59.4a,b 78.0b 73.0a,b 58.8 64.4a,b 50.7a,b Staff time to recruit/train/supervise 1 students 29.3a,b 40.0a,b 35.0a,b 37.0a,b 33.2a,b 25.4a,b 46.3a,b 35.7a,b 41.4a 48.2 24.2b 33.6a,b No students with the 1 skills needed 21.1a 43.1a,b 55.8b 25.0a,b 27.4a 31.0a,b 34.8a,b 30.7a 34.8a 3.5 27.5a 27.0a,b Not aware of any such 1 programs 27.3a 13.5a 25.0a 25.0a 25.0a 12.7a 23.2a 25.2a 28.4a 7.0 33.4a 13.2a Professional, regulatory, 1 or staffing issues 15.5a 26.7a,b 27.9a,b 42.0a,b 38.9b 16.9a,b 24.5a,b 23.7a,b 24.3a,b 40.5 16.6a 44.1b,c Recession or other 1 economic pressures 23.1a,c,d 13.3a,c,d 26.3a,c,d 8.0a,c,d 15.4a,b 22.5a,c,d 26.5a,c,d 36.9c 20.6a,c,d 41.2 19.5b,d 10.5a,c,d Too much 1 administration/paperwork 11.6a 26.7a,b 17.5a,b 17.0a,b 15.6a,b 9.9a,b 20.7a,b 27.7b 21.5a,b 10.5 22.8a,b 16.4a,b 1 Financial costs involved 17.2a,b 23.2a,b 21.3a 28.1a,b 14.8a,b 14.1a,b 28.5a,b 24.2a 26.3a 44.7 8.9b 7.3a,b Concern about competitors hiring 1,2 trained students 4.2a 3.3a 5.0a 4.0a 0.8a 5.6a 2.6a 6.3a 8.1a 0.0 3.7a 6.6a Heard negative things 2 1 from other employers 2.8a 6.6a 3.8a 8.0a 1.5a 2.8a 2.6a 0.0 4.1a 3.5 3.7a 3.3a 2 1 2 Other 6.2a 0.0 2.5a 5.0a 4.4a 4.2a 2.6a 3.0a 1.5a 3.5 4.9a 0.0 2 1,2 Don't Know 4.8a,b 0.0 1.3a 8.0a,b 6.9a,b 4.2a,b 5.2a,b 3.0a,b 4.1a,b 0.0 4.0a,b 15.1b 1. This category is not used in comparisons because the sum of case weights is less than two.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 67

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

How could participation in WIL be better facilitated? Approximately two-thirds of employers suggested that providing financial incentives for employers would help facilitate employer participation in WIL, with no significant differences between co-op and other WIL employers. Co-op employers were significantly more likely to suggest scheduling student placements to meet business cycle needs, standardizing procedures across institutions, simplifying and improving student recruitment and selection, and increasing placement length as ways to facilitate employer participation in WIL. Other WIL employers were significantly more likely to cite more support for student supervision and assessment as a means of facilitating employer participation in WIL.

Employers were also asked to provide the most important way to facilitate employer participation in WIL (Appendix A). Compared to co-op employers, employers who provide other types of WIL were much more likely to recommend financial incentives as the top strategy, and were also more interested in assistance with paperwork. Co-op employers were more likely to support standardized procedures and increased placement length.

Table 57: Facilitate Participation in WIL by Type of WIL* Type of WIL Co-op Other WIL n=350 n=579 %

Financial incentives for employers 63.1a 67.1a

Schedule student placements to meet business cycle needs 61.0a 45.2b

Standardized procedures across colleges/universities 58.8a 49.5b

Simplified and improved process to recruit/select students 48.5a 39.3b

Increase placement length 46.8a 30.3b

More information for employers 45.2a 47.1a

Centralized employer database 41.9a 34.6a

More opportunities for employer feedback 34.4a 39.1a

Assistance with applications, paperwork 29.3a 28.5a

More support to supervise/assess students 21.8a 39.4b

Reduce placement length 6.2a 9.0a

Other 5.4a 13.8b

Don't know 5.8a 6.5a

None/nothing 0.0a 0.7a *Includes only employers providing WIL to university students

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 68

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

5 – Challenges Associated with WIL

As a world leader in co-op programs, it is important that the University of Waterloo understand the challenges associated with WIL at all levels. Accordingly, the types of challenges experienced by graduating students, faculty, and employers are presented in the section below. These challenges and how they may be mediated by certain socio-demographic and background characteristics are also examined.

Graduating Student Survey

Provincial Graduating Student Survey Research on WIL has revealed a number of potential challenges that students who participate in WIL may experience. To provide insight into the issues that WIL students in Ontario face, the Graduating Student Survey included a list of 17 potential challenges and asked respondents to indicate whether each was a major challenge, a minor challenge, or did not apply to them. While the vast majority of graduating university students who participated in WIL experienced some type of challenge, most of the challenges were considered to be minor. The most frequently cited challenges were insufficient preparation from the university before the WIL experience, and classroom theory and skills that were not relevant to the workplace. The issue most frequently reported as a major challenge was not being paid. About two-fifths of WIL university students experienced no major challenges. Not surprisingly, there were significant differences in the challenges experienced depending on the type of WIL in which students participated. Most notably, students who participated in practicums or clinical placements found financial issues and demands on their time to be the greatest challenges, while the top challenges experienced by co-op students were primarily related to the work assigned in the workplace, in particular that the work was boring or not relevant to the theory and skills learned in school, or that there was too little work assigned. University of Waterloo Graduating Students What types of challenges do students most commonly encounter while participating in WIL and does program play a role? WIL students were asked to comment on the degree to which the statements in Table 58 were challenges for them while participating in WIL.

The top three biggest challenges faced by students participating in WIL differ significantly by type of WIL. The biggest challenges for co-op students were boring work assignments, not enough work assigned, and lack of relevance between the workplace and the theory and skills learned in school. The top challenges for other WIL students were the inability to find appropriate placements, a lack of preparation prior to WIL, and insufficient payment. It should be kept in mind that each of the challenges above was rated less than 2, meaning that none were considered to constitute even a minor challenge to WIL participation.

There are statistically significant differences between co-op and other WIL students in their perceptions of the extent of the challenges they faced. Co-op students considered boring work, not enough work assigned, and lack of relevance between the theory and skills learned in school and the workplace to be greater challenges than students who participated in other WIL. Other WIL students experienced greater levels of challenge related to financial costs and, in particular, lack of compensation.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 69

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Did not apply; 2=Minor challenge; 3=Major challenge) Table 58: Graduating Student Challenges Associated with WIL Participation Type of WIL Co-op Other WIL n=255 n=89 Mean

Work assigned was boring 1.85a 1.61b

Not enough work assigned in the workplace 1.82a 1.53b

The theory and skills I learned at school were not relevant to the workplace 1.81a 1.65b

Not enough opportunities to share what I learned when I went back to the classroom 1.77a 1.61a

Couldn’t find an appropriate placement for my field of study 1.74a 1.79a

Not enough preparation from my school before the WIL 1.71a 1.72a

Didn’t get paid enough 1.62a 1.63a

Feeling of disconnection from co-workers 1.57a 1.51a

Not enough support from my school during the WIL 1.51a 1.65a

Too many additional demands on my time 1.47a 1.56a

Too much work assigned in the workplace 1.46a 1.47a

Disorganized work environment 1.45a 1.41a

Unexpected financial costs 1.44a 1.63b

Not enough supervision in the workplace 1.42a 1.39a

Hard to balance WIL with my family commitments 1.38a 1.51a

Didn’t learn anything during the work placement 1.28a 1.33a

Didn’t get paid at all 1.18a 1.72b

Only two significant differences in the challenges faced by WIL students were found when comparing across program groups. Co-op students in Applied Heath Sciences, Arts, and Environment were more likely than co-op students in Math, Science, and Engineering to consider the additional time demands associated with co-op and balancing co-op with family commitments as challenges.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 70

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Did not apply; 2=Minor challenge; 3=Major challenge) Table 59: Graduating Student Challenges Associated with WIL Participation by Program Group Type of WIL Co-op Other WIL Program group Program group Math, SCI, AHS, Arts, Math, SCI, AHS, Arts, ENG ENV ENG ENV n=89 n=161 n=33 n=53 Mean

Work assigned was boring 1.87a 1.84a 1.61a 1.60a

Not enough work assigned in the workplace 1.79a 1.83a 1.54a 1.50a The theory and skills I learned at school were not relevant to the workplace 1.80a 1.81a 1.76a 1.56a Not enough opportunities to share what I learned when I went back to the classroom 1.68a 1.82a 1.67a 1.54a Couldn’t find an appropriate placement for my field of study 1.68a 1.78a 1.80a 1.75a

Not enough preparation from my school before the WIL 1.68a 1.73a 1.75a 1.66a

Didn’t get paid enough 1.62a 1.64a 1.63a 1.64a

Feeling of disconnection from co-workers 1.52a 1.61a 1.43a 1.54a

Not enough support from my school during the WIL 1.45a 1.56a 1.64a 1.64a

Too many additional demands on my time 1.34a 1.54b 1.62a 1.52a

Too much work assigned in the workplace 1.41a 1.49a 1.48a 1.45a

Disorganized work environment 1.36a 1.51a 1.48a 1.37a

Unexpected financial costs 1.42a 1.45a 1.80a 1.52a

Not enough supervision in the workplace 1.36a 1.46a 1.38a 1.38a

Hard to balance WIL with my family commitments 1.26a 1.46b 1.62a 1.41a

Didn’t learn anything during the work placement 1.26a 1.29a 1.34a 1.32a

Didn’t get paid at all 1.17a 1.19a 1.67a 1.72a

Faculty Survey

Provincial Faculty Survey The most common challenge associated with WIL, cited by approximately three-quarters of university faculty respondents, was ensuring quality placements for students. This was followed by finding enough placements for students, which was reported by 67 per cent of university faculty. Workload issues also proved to be significant challenges, as approximately one-half of university faculty cited managing WIL with large class sizes and balancing WIL with academic workloads as challenges they faced.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 71

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

University of Waterloo Faculty What are faculty members’ most commonly referenced challenges with respect to the implementation of WIL and how do these vary by experience with WIL? Among University of Waterloo faculty, the major challenges associated with the implementation of WIL concern placements and academic workloads. Approximately two-thirds (66%) of all faculty indicated that ensuring quality placements for students was a challenge, and more than half (57%) indicated that finding enough placements for students was a challenge. Close to half identified balancing WIL with academic workloads and managing WIL with large class sizes as additional challenges associated with WIL.

Table 60: Faculty Challenges Associated with WIL % n Ensuring quality placements for students 66.4 308 Finding enough placements for students 56.9 264 Balancing WIL with academic workloads 46.6 216 Managing WIL with large class sizes 46.3 215 Developing appropriate WIL curricula 37.7 175 Integrating the work experience with classroom learning 36.9 171 Managing employer expectations/communication 32.3 150 Managing student expectations/communication 32.1 149 Lack of financial and administrative resources for faculty 30.0 139 Developing valid student assessment and evaluation tools 28.9 134 Providing adequate institutional supports for students 27.8 129 Making WIL programs accessible to all students 19.4 90 Lack of salary recognition for faculty who participate in WIL 16.6 77 Lack of recognition for WIL activities in promotion decisions 14.0 65 Lack of faculty professional development (PD) on implementing WIL 14.0 65 Lack of institutional culture supporting WIL 12.3 57 Lack of institutional service recognition for WIL activities 11.6 54

There were few significant differences in faculty perceptions of the challenges associated with WIL by program group. A greater proportion of faculty from Applied Health Sciences, Arts, and Environment viewed a lack of financial and administrative resources for faculty, providing adequate institutional supports for students, making WIL programs accessible to all students, and lack of institutional service recognition for WIL activities as challenges.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 72

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Table 61: Faculty Challenges Associated with WIL by Program Group Program Group Math, SCI, ENG AHS, Arts, ENV n=229 n=240 %

Ensuring quality placements for students 63.7a 69.4a

Finding enough placements for students 57.1a 57.0a

Balancing WIL with academic workloads 45.1a 47.7a

Managing WIL with large class sizes 43.8a 49.4a

Developing appropriate WIL curricula 38.5a 37.0a

Integrating the work experience with classroom learning 35.4a 38.7a

Managing employer expectations/communication 36.3a 28.5a

Managing student expectations/communication 33.6a 30.6a

Lack of financial and administrative resources for faculty 24.3a 35.7b

Developing valid student assessment and evaluation tools 25.2a 32.8a

Providing adequate institutional supports for students 21.7a 34.0b

Making WIL programs accessible to all students 14.6a 24.3b

Lack of salary recognition for faculty who participate in WIL 15.0a 18.3a

Lack of recognition for WIL activities in promotion decisions 12.4a 15.7a

Lack of faculty PD on implementing WIL 12.8a 14.9a

Lack of institutional culture supporting WIL 11.5a 13.2a

Lack of institutional service recognition for WIL activities 8.0a 15.3b

As would be expected, there were significant differences in the perceived challenges associated with WIL by level of WIL involvement. Faculty who taught a course with a WIL component were much more likely than other faculty to identify many of the challenges listed, including ensuring quality placements, managing WIL with large class sizes, institutional supports for students, lack of faculty resources and PD, and lack of recognition for WIL related to promotion, salary, and institutional service.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 73

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Table 62: Faculty Challenges Associated with WIL by WIL Involvement Level of WIL Involvement Teach course with Teach in program with WIL WIL No WIL % n % n % n

Ensuring quality placements for students 77.8a 91 66.4a,b 170 52.3b 46

Finding enough placements for students 60.7a 71 57.4a 147 51.1a 45

Balancing WIL with academic workloads 43.6a 51 46.9a 120 50.0a 44

Managing WIL with large class sizes 64.1a 75 38.3b 98 46.6b 41

Developing appropriate WIL curricula 35.0a 41 36.7a 94 44.3a 39 Integrating the work experience with classroom learning 33.3a 39 37.9a 97 38.6a 34

Managing employer expectations/communication 38.5a 45 33.2a,b 85 21.6b 19

Managing student expectations/communication 38.5a 45 32.4a 83 23.9a 21 Lack of financial and administrative resources for faculty 43.6a 51 23.0b 59 31.8a,b 28 Developing valid student assessment and evaluation tools 34.2a 40 25.8a 66 31.8a 28 Providing adequate institutional supports for students 40.2a 47 24.2b 62 22.7b 20

Making WIL programs accessible to all students 22.2a 26 16.8a 43 22.7a 20 Lack of salary recognition for faculty who participate in WIL 24.8a 29 12.1b 31 19.3a,b 17 Lack of recognition for WIL activities in promotion decisions 28.2a 33 9.4b 24 8.0b 7

Lack of faculty PD on implementing WIL 22.2a 26 11.3b 29 11.4a,b 10

Lack of institutional culture supporting WIL 17.1a 20 10.9a 28 9.1a 8 Lack of institutional service recognition for WIL activities 18.8a 22 7.8b 20 12.5a,b 11

Employer Survey

Provincial Employer Survey Employer respondents who have provided WIL were asked about the challenges they experienced with WIL implementation. Over one-third of employers reported that they did not face any challenges. Between 20 and 30 per cent of employers faced challenges concerning student skill levels (both soft skills and technical skills), the staff time needed to recruit, train, and supervise students, and negative experiences with students.

Employer Survey What are the most common types of challenges experienced by employers providing workplace experiences? Does this vary by company size? More than one-half of co-op employers and over one-third of other WIL employers reported that they did not experience any challenges in providing WIL to students. Approximately one-quarter of both co-op and other WIL employers indicated that the soft skills of students did not meet their expectations. While co-op employers were less likely than other WIL employers to be dissatisfied with the technical skills of WIL

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 74

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

students, 18 per cent of co-op employers and 28 per cent of other WIL employers identified inadequate technical skills as a challenge. Only two significant differences were noted between co-op and other WIL employers when they were asked about the single biggest challenge they experienced (Appendix A).Co-op employers were much more likely to report no challenges and were much less likely to mention the demands on staff time as the biggest challenge. Table 63: Employer Challenges by Type of WIL Type of WIL Co-op Other WIL n=158 n=251 % No challenges 51.6a 37.3b Student didn’t have the soft skills we expected 25.1a 27.9a Student didn’t have the technical skills we expected 17.9a 28.1b Negative experience with the student 16.6a 18.4a Too much staff time to recruit/train/supervise students 15.0a 28.5b No suitable work for students 10.1a 10.9a Trained student was hired by a competitor 9.3a 12.0a Costs due to student errors/inexperience 8.1a 20.4b Too much administration/paperwork 6.7a 14.8b Not enough support from the college/university 4.9a 15.0b Professional, regulatory or staffing issues 4.5a 14.3b Other 1.7a 1.2a

While there were no significant differences between co-op employers at firms of different sizes, some significant differences were noted between other WIL employers. Other WIL employers with less than ten employees, as well as those with 20 to 49 employees, were more likely to report staffing issues and a lack of university support as challenges. Other WIL employers with ten to 19 employees were less likely to indicate that they did not experience any challenges and more likely to identify demands on staff time as a challenge. Other WIL employers with 20 to 49 employees were more likely to cite costs due to student errors/inexperience as a challenge. Employers were also asked to identify the single biggest challenge they faced (Appendix A). Other WIL employers with ten to 19 employees were the most likely to report challenges. For firms with 20 to 49 employees, other WIL employers were more likely than co-op employers to report a lack of soft skills as a challenge. The opposite was true for the smallest firms.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 75

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Table 64: Employer Challenges by Type of WIL and Company Size Company Size 2-9 10-19 20-49 50+ Co- Other Co- Other Co- Other Other op WIL op WIL op WIL Co-op WIL n=48 n=164 n=55 n=128 n=62 n=113 n=185 n=174 %

No challenges 52.0a 37.1a 52.4a 30.8b 56.3a 39.9a 46.2a 47.1a Student didn’t have the soft skills we expected 28.6a 24.9a 31.3a 31.2a 19.4a 30.9a 21.3a 24.1a Student didn’t have the technical skills we expected 20.7a 33.2a 16.1a 30.4b 19.3a 23.0a 16.9a 17.1a

Negative experience with the student 16.3a 17.8a 21.2a 18.7a 16.2a 19.2a 12.1a 17.7a Too much staff time to recruit/train/supervise students 17.5a 33.9a 20.9a 41.5b 5.7a 12.4a 15.2a 14.4a

No suitable work for students 23.2a 15.2a 6.7a 3.5a 4.2a 8.5a 11.6a 18.9a Trained student was hired by a competitor 3.9a 10.7a 4.9a 9.1a 11.4a 18.3a 15.5a 10.5a Costs due to student errors/inexperience 11.2a 17.5a 9.2a 21.2b 3.4a 30.6b 9.2a 7.2a

Too much administration/paperwork 9.1a 24.0a 6.6a 11.5a 1.7a 7.5a 10.0a 7.6a Not enough support from the college/university 2.0a 18.1b 9.9a 14.0a 2.3a 17.4b 3.3a 2.7a Professional, regulatory or staffing issues 6.7a 21.6b 2.5a 6.3a 2.8a 15.6b 7.0a 6.8a

Other 0.9a 1.1a 1.3a 1.4a 2.1a 0.4a 2.1a 3.3a

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 76

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

6 – Benefits of WIL

Student, faculty, and employer perceptions of the benefits of WIL provide the motivations needed to develop and participate in strong WIL programs.

Graduating students were asked about the types of benefits they received from participating in WIL. Their responses have been collapsed and represent the three broad groups identified by the National Commission for Cooperative Education (1995) as being valued outcomes of co-op education. A benefit commonly associated with WIL is the opportunity to earn money while in school. As a result, the average amount of debt with which students expect to graduate is also discussed in this section. This section of the report also focuses on graduating students’ perceptions of and satisfaction with PSE. More specifically, this analysis seeks to understand whether students’ perceptions of PSE and their experiences at the University of Waterloo were affected by their participation in WIL, as well as by the type of WIL in which they were involved.

Faculty members were asked about their perceptions of the benefits to students of WIL, as well as the faculty and institutional benefits associated with WIL participation. Since faculty perceptions of WIL benefits are expected to vary according to certain factors such as experiences with WIL, these results are also presented.

Employer perceptions of the benefits of participating in WIL are analyzed through their responses to the most important reasons for offering or planning to offer WIL. Another measure presented that is thought to capture the benefits to employers of WIL participation is the percentage of WIL students hired after graduation.

Graduating Student Survey

Provincial Graduating Student Survey Participating in WIL is thought to provide a range of benefits to students, including personal growth and development, enhanced employability skills, financial compensation, increased self-efficacy, improved learning outcomes, and increased satisfaction with PSE. To test these assertions, the Graduating Student Survey asked students to rate the effectiveness of their PSE in developing their skills related to the areas listed above, as well as to indicate their overall level of satisfaction with their education. In the provincial results, university graduating students who participated in WIL generally ascribed higher ratings to the quality of their postsecondary education in developing their employability skills and self-efficacy than those who had not participated in WIL. WIL students were also more satisfied with their overall postsecondary experience. Students’ ratings did not differ substantially, however, for personal growth, learning outcomes, or civic responsibility. With regard to financial benefits, university students who participated in WIL were actually slightly more likely to report having debt and had a higher median debt level than students who had not participated in WIL. As would be expected, median debt differed across the types of WIL. In particular, co-op students reported less debt than did non-WIL students, while the median debt of students who participated in practicums or clinical placements and service learning was higher.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 77

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

University of Waterloo Graduating Students What types of benefits do students receive from participating in WIL and do these benefits differ from other labour market or volunteer experiences? The greatest benefits to students from participating in WIL are related to career development. Co-op students were more likely than other WIL students to agree that they benefited professionally and personally from participating in WIL. All WIL students ascribed the lowest rating, on average, to academic benefits, with no significant differences between students who participated in co-op and those who did other types of WIL. (1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 65: Graduating Student Benefits from WIL Participation Type of WIL Co-op Other WIL n=255 n=89 Mean

Professional benefits 4.28a 3.72b

Personal benefits 4.04a 3.49b

Academic benefits 3.19a 3.35a

Student perceptions of academic, professional, and personal benefits associated with participating in real- world experiences vary by type of experience. While not shown below, confidence intervals were run to assess the extent to which student perceptions of WIL by type of experience differ significantly. WIL students were more likely to have significantly better perceptions of the academic and personal benefits resulting from WIL participation than students who gained experience through paid work or volunteering. Students who participated in WIL and who had outside employment had significantly higher perceptions of the professional benefits gained through WIL participation than students who volunteered. (1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 66: Graduating Student Benefits from WIL Participation by Type of Experience Type of Experience WIL Work Volunteer n=364 n=360 n=228 Mean Academic benefits 4.10 3.44 3.50 Professional benefits 3.87 3.94 3.34 Personal benefits 3.18 2.78 2.97

Do WIL students graduate with less debt than non-WIL students? The majority of students, regardless of WIL participation, expect to graduate with debt. However, statistically significant differences exist between co-op, other WIL, and non-WIL students in the amount of debt accumulated. Not surprisingly, co-op students expect to owe the lowest average amount. Less expected is the finding that other WIL students anticipate carrying the largest amount of debt.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 78

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Table 67: Graduating Student Debt by WIL Participation Type of WIL Co-op No WIL Other WIL n=250 n=152 n=82 % Yes 54.1 65.0 53.8 Expect to owe any debt that must be repaid a a a No 45.9a 35.0a 46.2a

Figure 3: Total Median Debt upon Graduation $35,000 $29,000 $30,000

$25,000 $20,000 $20,000 All students, $15,000 $19,000 $15,000

$10,000

$5,000

$0 Co-op No WIL Other WIL

What impact did WIL have on students’ perceptions of their PSE experience, specifically with regard to employability skills, learning outcomes, personal growth, civic responsibility, and self-efficacy? Graduating students were asked to assess the quality of the education they received at the University of Waterloo with respect to the development of knowledge and skills in the areas of employability and general learning. The response items included the 11 specific skills identified in the Conference Board of Canada’s Employability Skills 2000+ and eight broad learning outcomes that are generally associated with participation in postsecondary education.

All University of Waterloo graduating students regarded their education as effective in developing thinking and problem solving skills, providing the skills needed to adapt to different situations, providing opportunities to participate in and manage tasks and projects, preparing them for lifelong learning and working with others. With regard to learning outcomes, students had the best perceptions of the quality of their PSE in developing knowledge of their field of study and fostering critical thinking and self-reflection.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 79

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Poor; 2=Fair; 3=Average; 4=Good; 5=Excellent) Table 68: Graduating Student Perceptions of the Development of Employability Skills and Learning Outcomes Mean (n=535) Thinking and problem solving skills 4.23 Ability to adapt to different situations 4.12 Participating in and managing tasks and projects 4.09 Becoming a lifelong learner 4.04 Ability to work with others 4.00 Employability skills Information management and computer literacy skills 3.83 Personal and social responsibility 3.81 Self-confidence and positive attitude 3.80 Numeracy and data skills 3.73 Communication and presentation skills 3.70 Knowledge of workplace safety 3.21 Knowledge of your particular field of study 4.18 Critical thinking and self-reflection 4.03 Understanding of people from different races and cultures 3.70 Moral and ethical development 3.49 Learning outcomes Understanding of global issues 3.20 Understanding of local issues or community problems 3.19 Understanding of national issues 3.14 Appreciation of arts and culture 2.93

Co-op students regarded their university education as particularly effective in developing their thinking and problem solving skills, while other WIL and non-WIL students indicated that the University of Waterloo was most effective in preparing them for lifelong learning. Some significant differences were found when comparing results between graduating students based on their participation in WIL.

Looking at employability skills, co-op students were significantly more likely than other WIL and non-WIL students to indicate that the university did a good job at developing their numeracy and data skills. They were also more likely than non-WIL students to indicate that the University of Waterloo was effective in developing their ability to work with others, as well as their information management and computer literacy skills. Co-op students, however, gave lower ratings than all other students to the quality of their education in preparing them for lifelong learning and in developing personal and social responsibility. The effectiveness of the University of Waterloo in developing communication and presentation skills was shown to be significantly lower for other WIL students, while non-WIL students rated the university’s effectiveness in developing their knowledge of workplace safety lower than co-op and other WIL students.

While all University of Waterloo graduating students shared similar perceptions with respect to knowledge of their field of study and critical thinking and self-reflection, there were several significant differences among students, particularly between co-op students and all other graduating students. Co-op students

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 80

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

consistently indicated that that University of Waterloo was less effective in developing other measures of learning outcomes, including understanding local, national, and global issues, appreciation of arts and culture, understanding people from different backgrounds, and moral and ethical development. (1=Poor; 2=Fair; 3=Average; 4=Good; 5=Excellent) Table 69: Graduating Student Perceptions of the Development of Employability Skills and Learning Outcomes by Participation in WIL Type of WIL

Co-op Other WIL No WIL n=255 n=89 n=161 Mean

Thinking and problem solving skills 4.30a 4.14a 4.15a

Ability to adapt to different situations 4.12a 4.13a 4.15a

Participating in and managing tasks and projects 4.10a 4.07a 4.06a

Becoming a lifelong learner 3.92a 4.20b 4.16b

Ability to work with others 4.09a 4.04a,b 3.81b

Employability skills Information management and computer literacy skills 4.02a 3.73a,b 3.60b

Personal and social responsibility 3.62a 4.07b 3.99b

Self-confidence and positive attitude 3.74a 3.98a 3.87a

Numeracy and data skills 4.04a 3.53b 3.33b

Communication and presentation skills 3.68a 4.02b 3.58a

Knowledge of workplace safety 3.30a 3.44a 2.94b

Knowledge of your particular field of study 4.22a 4.26a 4.11a

Critical thinking and self-reflection 3.98a 4.07a 4.12a

Understanding of people from different races and cultures 3.49a 4.02b 3.87b

Moral and ethical development 3.20a 3.82b 3.74b Learning outcomes Understanding of global issues 2.90a 3.45b 3.45b

Understanding of local issues or community problems 2.89a 3.63b 3.44b

Understanding of national issues 2.83a 3.45b 3.41b

Appreciation of arts and culture 2.58a 3.16b 3.32b

University of Waterloo graduating students were also asked to indicate their level of agreement with statements related to personal growth, civic responsibility, and self-efficacy outcomes. While graduating students generally gave “average” ratings to the quality of their education in contributing to personal growth and development, two responses were more highly rated – the quality of their education in encouraging greater self-reflection , and in changing established patterns of behaviour. Graduating student perceptions of the impact of their education in developing their sense of civic responsibility were fairly positive, with the importance of helping others without payment receiving the highest quality rating. Measures of self-efficacy also had strong positive responses, in particular, the quality of students’ education in developing confidence in their ability to perform job-related tasks, to obtain outcomes that are important to them, and to perform many tasks effectively.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 81

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Poor; 2=Fair; 3=Average; 4=Good; 5=Excellent) Table 70: Graduating Student Perceptions of the Development Personal Growth, Civic Responsibility, and Self-efficacy Mean (n=535) As a result of my PSE I have changed the way I look at myself 3.95 As a result of my PSE, I have changed the way I used to do things 3.90 Personal growth During my PSE, I discovered faults in what I had previously believed to be right 3.66 My PSE has challenged some of my firmly held beliefs 3.40 It is important to help others even if you do not get paid for it 4.18 Individuals have a responsibility to help solve our social problems 4.01 Civic responsibility It is the responsibility of the whole community to take care of people who need help 3.92 I feel that I can make a difference in the world 3.91 I have confidence that I will be able to perform job-related tasks assigned to me 4.25 I believe that I can obtain outcomes that are important to me 4.23 I am confident that I can perform many different tasks effectively 4.22 I am able to successfully overcome many challenges 4.18 I feel certain that I will accomplish difficult tasks when faced with them 4.16 I have confidence in my ability to communicate in an effective manner 4.14 Self-efficacy I believe that I can succeed at almost anything to which I set my mind 4.07 I am able to perform quite well even when things are tough 4.06 I am able to do most tasks very well compared to other people 3.99 I believe that I will achieve most of the career goals that I have set for myself 3.95 I am confident that I will be able to progress through the ranks in my place of employment 3.94 I am confident about finding a job that interests me 3.76

Significant differences in graduating student perceptions of civic responsibility and self-efficacy were found when comparing by type of WIL. However, there were no significant differences in perceptions of personal growth.

While the survey only included four measures of civic responsibility, co-op students did have significantly different levels of agreement from all other students on three of the measures. Co-op students were less likely to agree that it is the responsibility of the whole community to take care of people who need help, and that it is important to help others without being paid to do so. They were also less likely to believe that they can make a difference in the world.

Two significant differences were found for measures of self-efficacy when comparing graduating students by type of WIL. Co-op students were significantly more likely than non-WIL students to agree that they were confident about their ability to progress through the ranks at their place of employment, while non- WIL students were significantly less confident than all other students about their ability to find employment that interests them.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 82

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 71: Graduating Student Perceptions of the Development Personal Growth, Civic Responsibility, and Self-efficacy by WIL Participation Type of WIL

Co-op Other WIL No WIL n=255 n=89 n=161 Mean As a result of my PSE, I have changed the way I look at myself 3.89a 4.06a 4.01a As a result of my PSE, I have changed the way I used to Personal do things 3.94a 3.86a 3.88a growth During my PSE, I discovered faults in what I had previously believed to be right 3.61a 3.74a 3.70a

My PSE has challenged some of my firmly held beliefs 3.29a 3.55a 3.50a It is important to help others even if you do not get paid for it 4.10a 4.21a,b 4.32b Individuals have a responsibility to help solve our social Civic problems 3.94a 4.13a 4.11a responsibility It is the responsibility of the whole community to take care of people who need help 3.80a 4.16b 4.07b

I feel that I can make a difference in the world 3.77a 4.19b 4.03b I have confidence that I will be able to perform job-related tasks assigned to me 4.34a 4.15a 4.19a I believe that I can obtain outcomes that are important to me 4.26a 4.27a 4.19a I am confident that I can perform many different tasks effectively 4.26a 4.19a 4.23a

I am able to successfully overcome many challenges 4.25a 4.18a 4.13a I feel certain that I will accomplish difficult tasks when faced with them 4.21a 4.20a 4.14a I have confidence in my ability to communicate in an Self-efficacy effective manner 4.16a 4.17a 4.10a I believe that I can succeed at almost anything to which I set my mind 4.14a 4.17a 4.01a

I am able to perform quite well even when things are tough 4.14a 4.05a 4.01a I am able to do most tasks very well compared to other people 4.06a 4.02a 3.93a I believe that I will achieve most of the career goals that I have set for myself 4.03a 4.06a 3.85a I am confident that I will be able to progress through the ranks in my place of employment 4.08a 3.91a,b 3.78b

I am confident about finding a job that interests me 3.92a 3.92a 3.55b

How satisfied were students with their overall WIL experience and does this vary by program?

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 83

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

On average, graduating students were satisfied with their WIL experiences, but co-op students reported higher levels of overall satisfaction than other WIL students.

(1=Very dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 4= Satisfied; 5=Very satisfied) Table 72: Graduating Students Overall Satisfaction with WIL Mean Unweighted n Co -op 4.23 289 Other WIL 3.96 123

Co-op graduating students were equally satisfied with their WIL experiences regardless of program area. However, higher levels of satisfaction were reported among students who participated in other types of WIL from the faculties of Math, Science, and Engineering, compared to those from Applied Heath Sciences, Arts, and Environment.

(1=Very dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 4= Satisfied; 5=Very satisfied) Table: 73 Graduating Students Overall Satisfaction with WIL by Program Group Program Group Math, SCI, ENG AHS, Arts, ENV

Mean Mean (n=145) (n=160) Co-op 4.22 4.23 Other WIL 4.06 3.89

Were WIL students more satisfied with their overall postsecondary experiences than non-WIL students? Co-op and other WIL students were relatively satisfied with their overall postsecondary experience at the University of Waterloo. However, non-WIL students were significantly less satisfied than co-op students with their postsecondary experience.

(1=Very dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 4= Satisfied; 5=Very satisfied) Table 74: Graduating Students Overall Satisfaction with Postsecondary Experience

Type of WIL Co-op Other WIL No WIL n=255 n=89 n=161 Mean

Satisfaction with overall postsecondary experience 4.08a 4.04a,b 3.86b

Faculty Survey

Provincial Faculty Survey Faculty respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with 16 statements about the potential student advantages and disadvantages associated with participating in WIL. Overall, university faculty expressed higher levels of agreement about the advantages associated with WIL than the disadvantages. University faculty had the highest levels of agreement about the labour market

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 84

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

advantages accrued to students participating in WIL, including its contribution to helping students better understand work realities and expectations, and to developing contacts and networks for future employment. A significant proportion of university faculty agreed or strongly agreed that WIL helps students better understand work realities and expectations (87%) and develop employment contacts (82%). There were lower levels of agreement about some other potential advantages of WIL, such as that WIL makes students more employable (67%). Faculty were also asked about the faculty and institutional benefits associated with WIL participation. Similar to faculty perceptions of student benefits, there were higher levels of agreement with the statements related to advantages than disadvantages. However, faculty reported lower levels of agreement overall (measured by the mean scores associated with each statement) with the faculty and institutional benefits associated with WIL than the student benefits. Faculty had the highest level of agreement with the statements that WIL strengthens links between the institution and the business community and that WIL connects postsecondary institutions to the broader community, with 77 per cent and 78 per cent respectively agreeing or strongly agreeing. University of Waterloo Faculty What were the perceived student benefits of WIL? University of Waterloo faculty tend to have fairly positive perceptions of the student benefits associated with WIL. They agreed most strongly that WIL helps students develop contacts and networks for future employment, and that WIL helps students better understand work realities and expectations. They also perceive additional benefits to students from increased self-confidence, enhanced postsecondary experience, career exploration, the application of theory and skills, and improved employability. There was much less agreement among faculty that WIL improves students’ understanding of academic course content. Low levels of faculty agreement with the statement that WIL only benefits students who go directly to the labour market suggests that faculty may also see value in WIL for students who go on to further education. (1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 75: Faculty Perceptions of Student Benefits Associated with WIL Mean (n=472) WIL helps students develop contacts and networks for future employment 4.26 WIL helps students better understand work realities and expectations 4.25 Participating in WIL increases students’ self-confidence 4.12 WIL enhances the postsecondary experience for students 4.11 WIL lets students explore their career interests and clarify their career goals 4.10 WIL lets students apply the theory and skills learned in the classroom 4.03 Students who participate in WIL are more employable than other students 4.02 WIL engages students in thinking critically about the workplace and the nature of work 3.93 Participation in WIL increases students’ engagement in their academic studies 3.76 WIL is particularly valuable for students considered “at risk" 3.15 There is a lack of evidence about the impact of WIL on student learning 2.89 Too many employers use WIL simply to reduce their salary costs 2.88 Employers, not students, are the main beneficiaries of WIL programs 2.46 The costs to students (both financial and time required) outweigh the benefits of WIL 2.34 WIL does little to improve students’ understanding of academic course content 2.26 WIL is only useful for students who go directly to the labour market after their PSE 2.25

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 85

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Do perceived student benefits vary by age group, gender, program group, non-academic work experience, experiences with WIL, or perception of the purpose of PSE? Faculty perceptions of the student benefits associated with WIL only differ significantly on two aspects based on age. Faculty aged 40 to 49 were more likely than faculty 50 years and older to agree that too many employers use WIL to reduce their salary costs, while faculty under the age of 40 were more likely than older faculty to agree that WIL does little to improve students’ understanding of academic course content. (1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 76: Faculty Perceptions of Student Benefits Associated with WIL by Age Group Age Group Under 50 and 40 40-49 older n=158 n=120 n=166 Mean

WIL helps students develop contacts and networks for future employment 4.28a 4.21a 4.29a

WIL helps students better understand work realities and expectations 4.27a 4.22a 4.25a

Participating in WIL increases students’ self-confidence 4.09a 4.08a 4.18a

WIL enhances the postsecondary experience for students 4.02a 4.12a 4.18a

WIL lets students explore their career interests and clarify their career goals 4.06a 4.07a 4.16a

WIL lets students apply the theory and skills learned in the classroom 3.95a 4.10a 4.05a

Students who participate in WIL are more employable than other students 3.86a 4.10a 4.10a WIL engages students in thinking critically about the workplace and the nature of work 3.88a 3.88a 4.02a

Participation in WIL increases students’ engagement in their academic studies 3.64a 3.79a 3.83a

WIL is particularly valuable for students considered “at risk" 3.15a 3.11a 3.18a

There is a lack of evidence about the impact of WIL on student learning 2.94a 2.90a 2.84a

Too many employers use WIL simply to reduce their salary costs 2.94a,b 3.01a 2.70b

Employers, not students, are the main beneficiaries of WIL programs 2.53a 2.38a 2.45a The costs to students (both financial and time required) outweigh the benefits of WIL 2.33a 2.36a 2.33a

WIL does little to improve students’ understanding of academic course content 2.47a 2.31a 2.04b WIL is only useful for students who go directly to the labour market after their PSE 2.30a 2.32a 2.14a

Minimal differences were found in faculty perceptions of the student benefits associated with WIL by gender. However, female faculty were more likely to agree that WIL lets students apply the theory and skills learned in the classroom, and male faculty were more likely to agree that students who participate in WIL are more employable than other students.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 86

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 77: Faculty Perceptions of Student Benefits Associated with WIL by Gender Gender Male Female n=309 n=146 Mean

WIL helps students develop contacts and networks for future employment 4.26a 4.31a

WIL helps students better understand work realities and expectations 4.28a 4.23a

Participating in WIL increases students’ self-confidence 4.12a 4.18a

WIL enhances the postsecondary experience for students 4.12a 4.13a

WIL lets students explore their career interests and clarify their career goals 4.07a 4.18a

WIL lets students apply the theory and skills learned in the classroom 3.98a 4.16b

Students who participate in WIL are more employable than other students 4.09a 3.98b

WIL engages students in thinking critically about the workplace and the nature of work 3.93a 4.01a

Participation in WIL increases students’ engagement in their academic studies 3.73a 3.87a

WIL is particularly valuable for students considered “at risk" 3.17a 3.13a

There is a lack of evidence about the impact of WIL on student learning 2.90a 2.84b

Too many employers use WIL simply to reduce their salary costs 2.89a 2.83a

Employers, not students, are the main beneficiaries of WIL programs 2.49a 2.38a

The costs to students (both financial and time required) outweigh the benefits of WIL 2.34a 2.30a

WIL does little to improve students’ understanding of academic course content 2.27a 2.21a

WIL is only useful for students who go directly to the labour market after their PSE 2.27a 2.18a

There were only two significant differences in the perceived student benefits of participating in WIL when results were examined by program group. Math, Science, and Engineering faculty reported higher levels of agreement with the statement that students who participate in WIL are more employable. Applied Health Sciences, Arts, and Environment faculty may have greater reservations about the academic benefits of WIL, since they were somewhat more likely to agree that there is a lack of evidence about the impact of WIL on student learning.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 87

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 78: Faculty Perceptions of Student Benefits Associated with WIL by Program Group Program Group Math, SCI, AHS, Arts, ENG ENV n=229 n=240 Mean

WIL helps students develop contacts and networks for future employment 4.27a 4.24a

WIL helps students better understand work realities and expectations 4.25a 4.25a

Participating in WIL increases students’ self-confidence 4.14a 4.09a

WIL enhances the postsecondary experience for students 4.13a 4.08a

WIL lets students explore their career interests and clarify their career goals 4.14a 4.04a

WIL lets students apply the theory and skills learned in the classroom 4.04a 4.03a

Students who participate in WIL are more employable than other students 4.13a 3.90b WIL engages students in thinking critically about the workplace and the nature of work 3.91a 3.97a

Participation in WIL increases students’ engagement in their academic studies 3.76a 3.76a

WIL is particularly valuable for students considered “at risk" 3.14a 3.15a

There is a lack of evidence about the impact of WIL on student learning 2.78a 2.99b

Too many employers use WIL simply to reduce their salary costs 2.84a 2.91a

Employers, not students, are the main beneficiaries of WIL programs 2.41a 2.50a The costs to students (both financial and time required) outweigh the benefits of WIL 2.31a 2.36a

WIL does little to improve students’ understanding of academic course content 2.29a 2.24a WIL is only useful for students who go directly to the labour market after their PSE 2.21a 2.28a

A handful of significant differences between full- and part-time faculty in their perceptions of the student benefits associated with participating in WIL were found. Part-time faculty were more likely to agree that WIL helps students develop contacts and networks for future employment, that participating in WIL increases students’ self-confidence, that WIL lets students explore their career interests and clarify their career goals, that WIL engages students in thinking critically about work, and that participation in WIL increases students’ engagement in their studies.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 88

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 79: Faculty Perceptions of Student Benefits Associated with WIL by Employment Status Employment Status Full-time Part-time n=286 n=178 Mean

WIL helps students develop contacts and networks for future employment 4.20a 4.36b

WIL helps students better understand work realities and expectations 4.17a 4.37b

Participating in WIL increases students’ self-confidence 4.04a 4.25b

WIL enhances the postsecondary experience for students 4.07a 4.17a

WIL lets students explore their career interests and clarify their career goals 4.02a 4.21b

WIL lets students apply the theory and skills learned in the classroom 3.98a 4.12a

Students who participate in WIL are more employable than other students 4.00a 4.03a

WIL engages students in thinking critically about the workplace and the nature of work 3.85a 4.07b

Participation in WIL increases students’ engagement in their academic studies 3.69a 3.86b

WIL is particularly valuable for students considered “at risk" 3.09a 3.23a

There is a lack of evidence about the impact of WIL on student learning 2.90a 2.87a

Too many employers use WIL simply to reduce their salary costs 2.85a 2.91a

Employers, not students, are the main beneficiaries of WIL programs 2.48a 2.40a

The costs to students (both financial and time required) outweigh the benefits of WIL 2.37a 2.28a

WIL does little to improve students’ understanding of academic course content 2.32a 2.18a

WIL is only useful for students who go directly to the labour market after their PSE 2.20a 2.30a

Non-academic work experience tends to mediate faculty perceptions of the student benefits associated with WIL. The largest difference between faculty members based on non-academic work experience was the belief that WIL does little to improve students’ understanding of academic course content – faculty without non-academic work experience had higher levels of agreement. Faculty members, regardless of non-academic work experience, strongly agreed that a considerable student benefit of WIL is the networking opportunities it provides. It should be kept in mind that while the differences between faculty with and without non-academic experience are statistically significant, the magnitudes of these differences are minimal.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 89

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 80: Faculty Perceptions of Student Benefits Associated with WIL by Non-academic Work Experience Non-academic Work Experience Yes No n=295 n=175 Mean

WIL helps students develop contacts and networks for future employment 4.31a 4.17b

WIL helps students better understand work realities and expectations 4.30a 4.16b

Participating in WIL increases students’ self-confidence 4.22a 3.94b

WIL enhances the postsecondary experience for students 4.20a 3.96b

WIL lets students explore their career interests and clarify their career goals 4.16a 4.00b

WIL lets students apply the theory and skills learned in the classroom 4.14a 3.85b

Students who participate in WIL are more employable than other students 4.13a 3.83b WIL engages students in thinking critically about the workplace and the nature of work 4.01a 3.80b

Participation in WIL increases students’ engagement in their academic studies 3.83a 3.64b

WIL is particularly valuable for students considered “at risk" 3.15a 3.13a

There is a lack of evidence about the impact of WIL on student learning 2.82a 3.00b

Too many employers use WIL simply to reduce their salary costs 2.80a 3.01b

Employers, not students, are the main beneficiaries of WIL programs 2.37a 2.60b The costs to students (both financial and time required) outweigh the benefits of WIL 2.22a 2.54b

WIL does little to improve students’ understanding of academic course content 2.13a 2.49b WIL is only useful for students who go directly to the labour market after their PSE 2.20a 2.33a

Faculty members’ perceptions of student benefits associated with WIL vary significantly by level of WIL involvement. The only response with no significant difference is the perception that WIL is particularly valuable for students considered “at risk.” Faculty who taught a course with a WIL component tended to have higher average levels of agreement about the student benefits associated with participating in WIL.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 90

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 81: Faculty Perceptions of Student Benefits Associated with WIL by WIL Involvement Level of WIL Involvement Teach in Teach course program with with WIL WIL No WIL n=118 n=260 n=91 Mean WIL helps students develop contacts and networks for future employment 4.51a 4.21b 4.08b WIL helps students better understand work realities and expectations 4.49a 4.18b 4.13b

Participating in WIL increases students’ self-confidence 4.54a 3.99b 3.92b

WIL enhances the postsecondary experience for students 4.53a 3.99b 3.91b WIL lets students explore their career interests and clarify their career goals 4.41a 4.03b 3.88b WIL lets students apply the theory and skills learned in the classroom 4.42a 3.91b 3.88b Students who participate in WIL are more employable than other students 4.27a 4.00b 3.73c WIL engages students in thinking critically about the workplace and the nature of work 4.28a 3.77b 3.95b Participation in WIL increases students’ engagement in their academic studies 4.10a 3.64b 3.64b

WIL is particularly valuable for students considered “at risk" 3.17a 3.10a 3.26a There is a lack of evidence about the impact of WIL on student learning 2.69a 2.91b 3.11b Too many employers use WIL simply to reduce their salary costs 2.69a 2.86a 3.20b Employers, not students, are the main beneficiaries of WIL programs 2.22a 2.48b 2.73b The costs to students (both financial and time required) outweigh the benefits of WIL 2.19a 2.29a 2.69b WIL does little to improve students’ understanding of academic course content 1.82a 2.40b 2.48b WIL is only useful for students who go directly to the labour market after their PSE 1.95a 2.24b 2.70c

Faculty differed significantly in their perceptions of the student benefits associated with WIL based on their participation in WIL as students. For example, faculty who participated in WIL when they were students were more likely to agree that WIL increases students’ self-confidence, enhances the postsecondary experience, allows students to explore their career interests, lets students apply classroom learning, increases students’ employability, engages students in critical thinking about work, and increases students’ engagement in their academic studies. Faculty who did not participate in WIL when they were students were more likely to agree with the disadvantages associated with WIL, including a lack of evidence about the impact of WIL on student learning, too many employers using WIL to reduce salary costs, employers being the primary beneficiaries of WIL programs, that WIL does little to improve students understanding of course content, and that it is only useful for students who go directly to the labour market after PSE.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 91

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 82: Faculty Perceptions of Student Benefits Associated with WIL by Participation in WIL as a Student Participated in WIL as a Student Yes No n=240 n=228 Mean

WIL helps students develop contacts and networks for future employment 4.37a 4.15b

WIL helps students better understand work realities and expectations 4.31a 4.18a

Participating in WIL increases students’ self-confidence 4.29a 3.93b

WIL enhances the postsecondary experience for students 4.29a 3.92b

WIL lets students explore their career interests and clarify their career goals 4.27a 3.91b

WIL lets students apply the theory and skills learned in the classroom 4.22a 3.84b

Students who participate in WIL are more employable than other students 4.22a 3.80b WIL engages students in thinking critically about the workplace and the nature of work 4.02a 3.85b

Participation in WIL increases students’ engagement in their academic studies 3.89a 3.62b

WIL is particularly valuable for students considered “at risk" 3.13a 3.17a

There is a lack of evidence about the impact of WIL on student learning 2.81a 2.98b

Too many employers use WIL simply to reduce their salary costs 2.77a 3.00b

Employers, not students, are the main beneficiaries of WIL programs 2.27a 2.65b The costs to students (both financial and time required) outweigh the benefits of WIL 2.24a 2.44a

WIL does little to improve students’ understanding of academic course content 2.12a 2.42b WIL is only useful for students who go directly to the labour market after their PSE 2.11a 2.39a

What were the perceived faculty and institutional benefits of WIL? Overall, faculty were somewhat less favourable about the institutional benefits associated with WIL than about the benefits to students. This is seen in the overall mean scores associated with each advantage. Faculty highly agreed with statements about personally thinking that WIL was valuable, as well as with perceived benefits associated with strengthening the link between the institution and the business community. Faculty also tended to agree that WIL has a positive impact on institutional recruitment and marketing, connections with the broader community, and institutional reputation.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 92

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 83: Faculty Perceptions of Faculty and Institutional Benefits Associated with WIL Mean (n=472) I personally think that WIL is valuable 4.24 WIL strengthens links between the institution and the business community 4.11 WIL is an effective PSE recruitment and marketing tool 3.99 WIL connects postsecondary institutions to the broader community 3.92 WIL enhances institutional reputation 3.91 Feedback from students and employers who participate in WIL can improve academic programming 3.75 WIL can engage postsecondary institutions in responding to identified community needs 3.66 WIL can help businesses find solutions to specific business or industry needs 3.60 Involvement with WIL helps faculty keep their knowledge current 3.52 WIL can involve postsecondary institutions in addressing global issues 3.49 My institution provides resources and supports for faculty to participate in WIL activities 3.40 WIL perpetuates a business model for PSE 3.27 WIL diverts funding away from program areas that may not lend themselves to WIL 3.16 By extending corporate involvement in curriculum, WIL has a negative overall impact on PSE 2.78 WIL is inconsistent with the values of a liberal education 2.43

Do the perceived faculty and intuitional benefits vary by age group, gender, program group, non- academic work experience, or experiences with WIL? Perceptions of the faculty and institutional benefits associated with WIL vary significantly according to faculty age, but only with respect to three statements. Faculty 50 years and older were more likely than faculty under the age of 40 to agree that WIL is an effective PSE recruitment and marketing tool, that WIL enhances institutional reputation, and that involvement with WIL helps faculty keep their knowledge current.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 93

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 84: Faculty Perceptions of Faculty and Institutional Benefits Associated with WIL by Age Group Age Group Under 50 and 40 40-49 older n=158 n=120 n=166 Mean

I personally think that WIL is valuable 4.19a 4.24a 4.30a

WIL strengthens links between the institution and the business community 4.05a 4.11a 4.16a

WIL is an effective PSE recruitment and marketing tool 3.87a 3.98a,b 4.10b

WIL connects postsecondary institutions to the broader community 3.81a 3.96a 3.99a

WIL enhances institutional reputation 3.76a 3.97a,b 4.00b Feedback from students and employers who participate in WIL can improve academic programming 3.68a 3.76a 3.81a WIL can engage postsecondary institutions in responding to identified community needs 3.57a 3.66b 3.76a

WIL can help businesses find solutions to specific business or industry needs 3.56a 3.65a 3.60a

Involvement with WIL helps faculty keep their knowledge current 3.38a 3.51a,b 3.67b

WIL can involve postsecondary institutions in addressing global issues 3.39a 3.46a 3.61a My institution provides resources and supports for faculty to participate in WIL activities 3.30a 3.37b 3.50a

WIL perpetuates a business model for PSE 3.30a 3.24a 3.28a WIL diverts funding away from program areas that may not lend themselves to WIL 3.23a 3.13a 3.13a By extending corporate involvement in curriculum, WIL has a negative overall impact on PSE 2.87a 2.79a 2.68a

WIL is inconsistent with the values of a liberal education 2.50a 2.43a 2.37a

Only two significant differences in perceptions of the institutional benefits of WIL participation were found between male and female faculty. Female faculty were more likely to agree that WIL can engage postsecondary institutions in responding to identified community needs as well as in addressing global issues.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 94

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 85: Faculty Perceptions of Faculty and Institutional Benefits Associated with WIL by Gender Gender Male Female n=309 n=146 Mean

I personally think that WIL is valuable 4.24a 4.28a

WIL strengthens links between the institution and the business community 4.12a 4.10a

WIL is an effective PSE recruitment and marketing tool 4.03a 3.92a

WIL connects postsecondary institutions to the broader community 3.90a 3.99a

WIL enhances institutional reputation 3.93a 3.92a Feedback from students and employers who participate in WIL can improve academic programming 3.75a 3.80a

WIL can engage postsecondary institutions in responding to identified community needs 3.58a 3.87b

WIL can help businesses find solutions to specific business or industry needs 3.60a 3.61a

Involvement with WIL helps faculty keep their knowledge current 3.50a 3.57a

WIL can involve postsecondary institutions in addressing global issues 3.43a 3.66b

My institution provides resources and supports for faculty to participate in WIL activities 3.45a 3.28a

WIL perpetuates a business model for PSE 3.28a 3.26a

WIL diverts funding away from program areas that may not lend themselves to WIL 3.14a 3.19a

By extending corporate involvement in curriculum, WIL has a negative overall impact on PSE 2.74a 2.82a

WIL is inconsistent with the values of a liberal education 2.39a 2.50a

Faculty in both program groups reported a high level of agreement with the statement that WIL is valuable. The only significant differences between program groups were higher levels of agreement among Applied Health Sciences, Arts, and Environment faculty about the value of WIL for connecting postsecondary institutions to the broader community and responding to community needs, and that the University of Waterloo provides resources and supports for faculty to engage in WIL activities.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 95

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 86: Faculty Perceptions of Faculty and Institutional Benefits Associated with WIL by Program Group Program Group Math, SCI, AHS, Arts, ENG ENV n=229 n=240 Mean

I personally think that WIL is valuable 4.27a 4.21a

WIL strengthens links between the institution and the business community 4.15a 4.07a

WIL is an effective PSE recruitment and marketing tool 3.98a 4.00a

WIL connects postsecondary institutions to the broader community 3.84a 4.01b

WIL enhances institutional reputation 3.99a 3.84a Feedback from students and employers who participate in WIL can improve academic programming 3.70a 3.80a WIL can engage postsecondary institutions in responding to identified community needs 3.49a 3.83b

WIL can help businesses find solutions to specific business or industry needs 3.58a 3.63a

Involvement with WIL helps faculty keep their knowledge current 3.45a 3.59a

WIL can involve postsecondary institutions in addressing global issues 3.45a 3.59a My institution provides resources and supports for faculty to participate in WIL activities 3.39a 3.59b

WIL perpetuates a business model for PSE 3.23a 3.31a

WIL diverts funding away from program areas that may not lend themselves to WIL 3.09a 3.23a By extending corporate involvement in curriculum, WIL has a negative overall impact on PSE 2.72a 2.83a

WIL is inconsistent with the values of a liberal education 2.41a 2.45a

Three statistically significant differences in perceptions of the institutional benefits associated with WIL were found when comparing faculty by employment status. Part-time faculty were more likely to agree about the value of WIL and that feedback from students and employers who participate in WIL can improve academic programming. Full-time faculty were more likely to agree that by extending corporate involvement in curriculum, WIL has a negative overall impact on PSE.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 96

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 87: Faculty Perceptions of Faculty and Institutional Benefits Associated with WIL by Employment Status Employment Status Full-time Part-time n=286 n=178 Mean

I personally think that WIL is valuable 4.18a 4.35b

WIL strengthens links between the institution and the business community 4.07a 4.17a

WIL is an effective PSE recruitment and marketing tool 4.00a 3.95a

WIL connects postsecondary institutions to the broader community 3.90a 3.95a

WIL enhances institutional reputation 3.91a 3.92a Feedback from students and employers who participate in WIL can improve academic programming 3.63a 3.94b

WIL can engage postsecondary institutions in responding to identified community needs 3.60a 3.74a

WIL can help businesses find solutions to specific business or industry needs 3.60a 3.61a

Involvement with WIL helps faculty keep their knowledge current 3.45a 3.62a

WIL can involve postsecondary institutions in addressing global issues 3.44a 3.56a

My institution provides resources and supports for faculty to participate in WIL activities 3.44a 3.33a

WIL perpetuates a business model for PSE 3.28a 3.26a

WIL diverts funding away from program areas that may not lend themselves to WIL 3.20a 3.08a

By extending corporate involvement in curriculum, WIL has a negative overall impact on PSE 2.86a 2.64b

WIL is inconsistent with the values of a liberal education 2.43a 2.45a

There were a number of significant differences in perceived faculty and institutional benefits associated with WIL by non-academic work experience. For example, faculty with non-academic work experience were significantly more likely to agree that they personally thought WIL was valuable, as well as with statements about the benefits of WIL with regard to connecting institutions to the broader community, enhancing institutional reputation, and enhancing academic programming based on feedback from WIL students and employers. Faculty without non-academic work experience were significantly more likely to agree that WIL has a negative overall impact on PSE because of corporate involvement in the curriculum and that it is inconsistent with the values of a liberal education.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 97

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 88: Faculty Perceptions of Faculty and Institutional Benefits Associated with WIL by Non- academic Work Experience Non-academic Work Experience Yes No n=295 n=175 Mean

I personally think that WIL is valuable 4.33a 4.09b WIL strengthens links between the institution and the business community 4.15a 4.04a

WIL is an effective PSE recruitment and marketing tool 4.00a 3.97a

WIL connects postsecondary institutions to the broader community 3.99a 3.81b

WIL enhances institutional reputation 3.98a 3.80b Feedback from students and employers who participate in WIL can improve academic programming 3.87a 3.55b WIL can engage postsecondary institutions in responding to identified community needs 3.75a 3.50b WIL can help businesses find solutions to specific business or industry needs 3.63a 3.55a

Involvement with WIL helps faculty keep their knowledge current 3.67a 3.26b

WIL can involve postsecondary institutions in addressing global issues 3.60a 3.31b My institution provides resources and supports for faculty to participate in WIL activities 3.41a 3.37a

WIL perpetuates a business model for PSE 3.22a 3.36a WIL diverts funding away from program areas that may not lend themselves to WIL 3.05a 3.36b By extending corporate involvement in curriculum, WIL has a negative overall impact on PSE 2.61a 3.07b

WIL is inconsistent with the values of a liberal education 2.36a 2.55a

There were a number of significant differences between faculty members based on their level of WIL involvement, and in fact the only statement where no significant differences were found was that WIL perpetuates a business model for PSE. Faculty who taught a course with WIL reported higher levels of agreement with statements about the faculty and institutional benefits associated with WIL compared to all others. There were, however, three exceptions. First, faculty who taught a course with WIL were more likely than faculty with no WIL involvement to agree that the University of Waterloo provides resources and supports for faculty to participate in WIL activities. Second, faculty who taught a course with WIL were less likely to agree that WIL diverts funding away from program areas that may not lend themselves to WIL than faculty with no WIL involvement. Third, faculty who taught a course with WIL agreed more strongly than other faculty – particularly those with no WIL involvement – that WIL is an effective PSE recruitment and marketing tool.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 98

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 89: Faculty Perceptions of Faculty and Institutional Benefits Associated with WIL by WIL Involvement Level of WIL Involvement Teach Teach in course with program with WIL WIL No WIL n=118 n=260 n=91 Mean

I personally think that WIL is valuable 4.65a 4.13b 4.05b WIL strengthens links between the institution and the business community 4.34a 4.06b 3.95b

WIL is an effective PSE recruitment and marketing tool 4.22a 3.96b 3.73c

WIL connects postsecondary institutions to the broader community 4.32a 3.77b 3.83b

WIL enhances institutional reputation 4.26a 3.85b 3.64b Feedback from students and employers who participate in WIL can improve academic programming 4.18a 3.59b 3.65b WIL can engage postsecondary institutions in responding to identified community needs 4.10a 3.46b 3.66b WIL can help businesses find solutions to specific business or industry needs 3.86a 3.53b 3.43b

Involvement with WIL helps faculty keep their knowledge current 4.08a 3.28b 3.48b

WIL can involve postsecondary institutions in addressing global issues 3.90a 3.31b 3.49b My institution provides resources and supports for faculty to participate in WIL activities 3.56a 3.38a,b 3.21b

WIL perpetuates a business model for PSE 3.22a 3.29a 3.27a WIL diverts funding away from program areas that may not lend themselves to WIL 2.96a 3.21a,b 3.29b By extending corporate involvement in curriculum, WIL has a negative overall impact on PSE 2.36a 2.88b 3.04b

WIL is inconsistent with the values of a liberal education 2.21a 2.43a 2.75b

Faculty members’ participation in WIL when they were students mediates their level of agreement about faculty and institutional benefits associated with WIL. Faculty who participated in WIL when they were students had higher levels of agreement when significant differences were found, with two exceptions. Faculty who did not participate in WIL when they were students were more likely to agree that WIL diverts funding away from program areas that may not lend themselves to WIL, and that by extending corporate involvement in the curriculum, WIL has a negative overall impact on PSE.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 99

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 90: Faculty Perceptions of Faculty and Institutional Benefits Associated with WIL by Participation in WIL as a Student Participated in WIL as a Student Yes No n=240 n=228 Mean

I personally think that WIL is valuable 4.46a 4.01b WIL strengthens links between the institution and the business community 4.20a 4.01b

WIL is an effective PSE recruitment and marketing tool 4.08a 3.89b

WIL connects postsecondary institutions to the broader community 4.04a 3.80b

WIL enhances institutional reputation 4.08a 3.74b Feedback from students and employers who participate in WIL can improve academic programming 3.94a 3.56b WIL can engage postsecondary institutions in responding to identified community needs 3.73a 3.60a WIL can help businesses find solutions to specific business or industry needs 3.66a 3.54a

Involvement with WIL helps faculty keep their knowledge current 3.70a 3.33b

WIL can involve postsecondary institutions in addressing global issues 3.58a 3.40b My institution provides resources and supports for faculty to participate in WIL activities 3.42a 3.37a

WIL perpetuates a business model for PSE 3.19a 3.36a WIL diverts funding away from program areas that may not lend themselves to WIL 3.00a 3.32b By extending corporate involvement in curriculum, WIL has a negative overall impact on PSE 2.64a 2.92b

WIL is inconsistent with the values of a liberal education 2.33a 2.53a

Employer Survey

Provincial Employer Survey Employers were asked about their motivations for providing WIL. Approximately one-quarter of employers reported that they provide WIL as a means of developing industry/profession workforce skills, and slightly more than one-fifth cited prescreening potential new hires as their most important reason for offering WIL. Future WIL employers were also asked about their motivations for planning to offer WIL. Prescreening potential new hires was the most frequent main reason for planning to provide WIL, reported by slightly less than one-fifth of employer respondents. However, almost as many future WIL employers identified giving back to the community as the single most important reason for their interest in WIL.

Employer Survey What are employers’ most important reasons for offering and planning to offer WIL? The most important employer reasons for providing WIL are mediated by the type of WIL provided. Almost one-quarter of co-op employers cited prescreening potential hires as their most important reason

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 100

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

for providing WIL, followed closely by the desire to develop industry/profession workforce skills and to bring in specific skills and talent. Among other WIL employers, developing industry/profession workforce skills was the most important reason, cited by slightly less than one-quarter of respondents. Other WIL employers were also motivated by the desire to “give back” to the community and to prescreen potential new hires. Co-op employers were significantly more likely to provide WIL as a means of prescreening potential new hires and to manage short-term pressures or complete special projects, while other WIL employers were more likely to provide WIL to “give back” to the community. When all reasons for providing WIL were analyzed, the most frequently reported reason for providing WIL for both co-op and other WIL employers was to develop industry/profession workforce skills. Comparison between co-op and other WIL employers shows only one significant difference. Other WIL employers were significantly less likely to report that they provide WIL to manage short-term pressures or complete special projects (Appendix A). Table 91: Most Important Reason for Providing WIL by Type of WIL* Type of WIL Co-op Other WIL n=350 n=579 % To prescreen potential new hires 22.7a 15.8b To develop industry/profession workforce skills 20.0a 23.3a To bring in specific skills/talent 17.1a 13.3a To manage short-term pressures or complete special projects 15.6a 8.8b To “give back” to the community 9.2a 17.9b To increase productivity 6.8a 6.7a To reduce labour costs 3.5a 6.3a Asked by the college/university 1.2a 2.8a To enhance company reputation 0.9a 1.5a Heard positive things from other employers 0.0 0.6a Other 0.6a 1.3a Don't know 2.4a 1.7a *Includes only employers providing WIL to university students

Prescreening potential new hires and “giving back” to the community were the two biggest motivators for employers who indicated they were planning to provide WIL. These were closely followed by the desire to bring in specific skills and talent.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 101

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Table 92: Most Important Reason for Planning to Provide WIL Unweighted n % (n=412) To prescreen potential new hires 18.8 95 To “give back” to the community 18.2 52 To bring in specific skills/talent 15.1 51 To manage short-term pressures or complete special projects 12.7 55 To develop industry/profession workforce skills 11.1 68 To increase productivity 8.7 32 To reduce labour costs 6.3 24 To enhance company reputation 4.3 11 Heard positive things from other employers 2.4 4 Asked by the college/university 0.9 9 Other 0.0 0 Don't know 1.5 11

In the total time employers have provided WIL, what percentages of students have been hired after graduation? Employers were asked to estimate the percentage of WIL students they had hired following the students’ graduation from university during the entire period in which they were involved in Ontario university workplace programs. One-quarter of university co-op employers reported hiring 25 per cent or fewer of the co-op students they had placed. Another one in five employers hired between one-quarter and one- half of their university co-op students and a similar proportion hired at least half of their university co-op students, including 14 per cent who hired more than three-quarters of the students who completed work- terms in their workplaces.

Figure 4: Percentage of Students Hired After Graduation, Co-op*

23% 24% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% 15% 19% None DK/NR 14% 5%

*Includes only employers providing co-op to university students

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 102

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Employers who provided other types of WIL were far more likely than those who provided co-op to report not hiring any students after graduation. Similar to co-op employers, one-quarter of other WIL employers hired 25 per cent or fewer of their WIL students after graduation. However, only 24 per cent had hired more than one-quarter of the students who did WIL at their workplaces, compared to 38 per cent of co-op employers.

Figure 5: Percentage of Students Hired After Graduation, Other WIL*

19% 1-25% 25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% 11% None 32% DK/NR 9% 4%

*Includes only employers providing other WIL to university students

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 103

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

7 – The University of Waterloo Relative to Other Participating Universities

This final analysis chapter draws comparisons between the University of Waterloo and all other participating universities. A total of six universities participated in the Faculty Survey – Laurentian University, University of Ottawa, University of Waterloo, Western University, University of Windsor, and York University. Seven universities participated in the Graduating Student Survey – all universities listed above, as well as Carleton University.

Comparisons are made between graduating student respondents as well as university faculty respondents. These comparisons allow for the assessment of the extent to which University of Waterloo graduating students and faculty differ from their counterparts at other universities.

Participation in WIL Graduating Student Survey What proportion of students participated in WIL? The proportion of graduating students who participated in WIL differs significantly between the University of Waterloo and all other participating universities. University of Waterloo graduating students were far more likely to have participated in co-op programs, while graduating students from the other participating universities were far more likely to have participated in other WIL and to have no WIL experience. Other participating university graduating student respondents were also more likely to indicate future WIL participation and were less likely to report starting in co-op and subsequently transferring out.

Table 93: Graduating Student Participation in WIL by University Institution Other UW universities n=535 n=5322 %

Co-op 48.0a 5.3b

Other WIL 16.2a 34.0b

No WIL 29.8a 55.2b

Future WIL 1.9a 5.0b

Started in co-op by transferred out 4.0a 0.6b

Do the socio-demographic characteristics of WIL participants vary by institution? There were few socio-demographic differences between graduating students at the University of Waterloo and other participating universities by WIL participation. However, males at the University of Waterloo were significantly more likely to have participated in co-op than in other types of WIL, while females from other participating universities were more likely to have participated in co-op. Co-op and other WIL students at the University of Waterloo were significantly more likely to have enrolled in university immediately after high school when compared to their counterparts at other participating universities. Students in Math, Science, and Engineering at the University of Waterloo were significantly more likely to have no WIL experience compared to other universities, while Arts, Applied Health Science, and

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 104

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Environment students at the University of Waterloo were significantly less likely to have no WIL experience than their counterparts at other universities.

These differences are reflective of the larger population of respondents. For example, there was a significantly larger proportion of males at the University of Waterloo (54% vs. 39%) than at other universities. There was also a significantly larger percentage of direct entrants at the University of Waterloo than at other participating universities (80% vs. 64%), and the percentage of University of Waterloo students in Math, Science, and Engineering was significantly larger than at other universities (37% vs. 16%).

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 105

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Table 94: WIL Participation by Socio-Demographics and Institution Type of WIL Co-op Other WIL No WIL Institution UW Other universities UW Other universities UW Other universities % n % n % n % n % n % n

Male 64.4a 130 51.3b 114 37.4a 24 33.5a 481 44.7a 49 40.8a 927

Gender Female 35.6a 124 48.7b 171 62.6a 63 66.5a 1375 55.3a 107 59.2a 1929 Total 100.0 254 100.0 285 100.0 87 100.0 1856 100.0 156 100.0 2856

Direct entry 89.2a 229 68.7b 217 71.4a 64 59.2b 1265 70.5a 124 66.4a 2118

Entry type Delayed entry 10.8a 26 31.3b 70 28.6a 25 40.8b 622 29.5a 37 33.6a 770 Total 100.0 255 100.0 287 100.0 89 100.0 1887 100.0 161 100.0 2888

Yes 15.4a 41 17.3a 49 16.3a 14 21.4a 383 26.5a 40 23.6a 621

First-generation status No 84.6a 209 82.7a 235 83.7a 72 78.6a 1452 73.5a 114 76.4a 2186 Total 100.0 250 100.0 284 100.0 86 100.0 1835 100.0 154 100.0 2807

Math, SCI, ENG 35.4a 89 39.2a 104 37.6a 33 15.5b 275 39.8a 63 14.0b 383

Program group AHS, Arts, ENV 64.6a 161 60.8a 177 62.4a 53 84.5b 1560 60.2a 92 86.0b 2348 Total 100.0 250 100.0 281 100.0 86 100.0 1835 100.0 155 100.0 2731

Of those who did not participate in WIL, did their program provide the option? While more than 40 per cent of other university graduating student respondents indicated that they had an option to participate in WIL, University of Waterloo graduating students were significantly more likely to indicate that their program did have a WIL option. Other university graduating students were significantly more likely to report that they were unsure whether the option to participate in WIL was offered in their program.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 106

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Table 95: Program Option to Participate in WIL by Institution Institution UW Other universities n=161 n=2888 %

Yes 63.5a 106 42.9b 1301 Does your current postsecondary program offer students the option of participating in work-integrated learning? No 24.2a 37 31.1a 867 Not sure 12.3a 18 26.0b 720

Faculty Survey Were University of Waterloo faculty socio-demographically different from faculty at other participating universities? Faculty at the University of Waterloo, regardless of their age, gender, program group, employment status, and non-academic work experience, were significantly more likely to have taught in a program with a WIL component and were significantly less likely to have no WIL involvement. However, a significantly smaller proportion of full-time faculty taught in a course with WIL at the University of Waterloo when compared to faculty at other participating universities.

Table 96: Faculty WIL Involvement by Age Group and Institution Age Group Under 40 40-49 50 and over Institution Other Other Other UW universities UW universities UW universities n=158 n=337 n=145 n=508 n=166 n=580 % Teach course with WIL 13.9 18.4 24.1 28.5 36.7 38.8 Level of a a a a a a Teach in program with WIL WIL 57.0 23.4 58.6 22.4 51.2 20.5 involvement a b a b a b No WIL 29.1a 58.2b 17.2a 49.0b 12.0a 40.7b

Table 97: Faculty WIL Involvement by Gender and Institution Gender Male Female Institution UW Other universities UW Other universities n=308 n=795 n=144 n=604 % Teach course with WIL 22.7 27.7 31.9 33.9 Level of a a a a Teach in program with WIL WIL 59.7 24.2 45.1 19.0 involvement a b a b No WIL 17.5a 48.2b 22.9a 47.0b

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 107

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Table 98: Faculty WIL Involvement by Program Group and Institution Program Group Math, SCI, ENG AHS, Arts, ENV Institution UW Other universities UW Other universities n=212 n=351 n=240 n=950 %

Teach course with WIL 18.a 20.2a 30.0a 31.1a Level of WIL Teach in program with involvement WIL 68.9a 34.2b 45.0a 17.8b

No WIL 12.3a 45.6b 25.0a 51.2b

Table 99: Faculty WIL Involvement by Employment Status and Institution Employment Status Full-time Part-time Institution UW Other universities UW Other universities n=286 n=923 n=175 n=499 %

Teach course with WIL 24.8a 31.7b 24.0a 27.7a Level of WIL Teach in program with involvement WIL 63.3a 23.9b 43.4a 18.2b

No WIL 11.9a 44.3b 32.6a 54.1b

Table 100: Faculty WIL Involvement by Non-academic Work Experience and Institution Non-academic Work Experience Yes No Institution UW Other universities UW Other universities n=294 n=946 n=175 n=479 %

Teach course with WIL 31.6a 36.9a 14.3a 17.3a Level of WIL Teach in program with involvement WIL 51.7a 22.2b 61.7a 21.3b

No WIL 16.7 a 40.9b 24.0a 61.4b

Do impacts on faculty workloads resulting from WIL differ by institution? The impact that teaching a course with WIL has on faculty workloads was found, in some instances, to vary by institution. University of Waterloo faculty were less likely than faculty from other participating universities to gather feedback from students on the quality of their WIL experience, or from employers/community partners on their experience with WIL students. They were less likely to perform classroom-related WIL activities such as evaluating students’ WIL-related classroom assignments, assessing students for their workplace activities, and preparing WIL-related lectures, tutorials, workshops. University of Waterloo faculty were also less likely than faculty from the other participating universities to be involved in workplace aspects

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 108

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

associated with WIL, including supervising/interacting with WIL administrative staff/coordinators, and conducting site visits and monitoring students in the workplace.

Table 101: Impact of WIL on Faculty Workloads by Institution Institution Other UW universities % n % n Did not do this 28.8 34 21.2 89 a a Part of regular duties 50.8 60 60.1 252 Established WIL student learning objectives a a Addition to reg duties 20.3a 24 18.6a 78 Did not do this 31.4 37 24.2 102 Developed WIL-related curricula or course a a Part of regular duties 46.6 55 56.2 237 content a a Addition to reg duties 22.0a 26 19.7a 83 Did not do this 35.6 42 20.7 87 Gathered feedback from students on the quality a b Part of regular duties 49.2 58 62.4 262 of their WIL experience a b Addition to reg duties 15.3a 18 16.9a 71 Did not do this 35.3 42 18.6 78 Evaluated students’ WIL-related classroom a b Part of regular duties 52.1 62 68.3 287 assignments a b Addition to reg duties 12.6a 15 13.1a 55 Did not do this 33.1 39 26.9 112 Provided career/employment counseling or a a Part of regular duties 30.5 36 39.3 164 mentoring for students a a Addition to reg duties 36.4a 43 33.8a 141 Did not do this 34.5 41 23.5 99 Prepared WIL-related lectures, tutorials, a b Part of regular duties 48.7 58 58.8 248 workshops a a Addition to reg duties 16.8a 20 17.8a 75 Did not do this 46.7 56 41.0 169 Prepared or oriented students into a a Part of regular duties 39.2 47 46.1 190 industry/sector a a Addition to reg duties 14.2a 17 12.9a 53 Did not do this 48.7 58 43.5 181 Managed relationships with host employers and a a Part of regular duties 29.4 35 35.8 149 community partners a a Addition to reg duties 21.8a 26 20.7a 86 Did not do this 47.1a 56 32.5b 137 Assessed students for their workplace activities Part of regular duties 40.3a 48 53.4b 225 Addition to reg duties 12.6a 15 14.0a 59 Did not do this 52.2a 60 48.0a 200 Recruited WIL partners/host sites Part of regular duties 23.5a 27 23.3a 97 Addition to reg duties 24.3a 28 28.8a 120 Did not do this 52.5 62 36.1 151 Gathered feedback from employers/community a b Part of regular duties 31.4 37 46.9 196 partners on their experience with WIL students a b Addition to reg duties 16.1a 19 17.0a 71 Did not do this 54.2 65 55.6 233 Prepared or oriented host employers and a a Part of regular duties 26.7 32 26.3 110 community partners a a Addition to reg duties 19.2a 23 18.1a 76 Did not do this 52.1 62 40.0 168 Supervised/interacted with WIL administrative a b Part of regular duties 35.3 42 42.4 178 staff/coordinators a a Addition to reg duties 12.6a 15 17.6a 74 Did not do this 55.9 66 48.4 203 Completed paperwork and documentation a a Part of regular duties 24.6 29 33.7 141 specific to WIL contracts a a Addition to reg duties 19.5a 23 17.9a 75 Did not do this 76.1 89 48.2 203 Conducted site visits and monitored students in a b Part of regular duties 17.9 21 37.1 156 the workplace a b Addition to reg duties 6.0a 7 14.7b 62 Coordinated risk management and insurance Did not do this 76.7a 89 76.7a 320 details Part of regular duties 15.5a 18 14.4a 60

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 109

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Addition to reg duties 7.8a 9 8.9a 37 Did not do this 78.0 92 73.5 305 Provided training and support for employers/site a a Part of regular duties 16.1 19 15.9 66 supervisors a a Addition to reg duties 5.9a 7 10.6a 44

As reported earlier, faculty were provided with 19 statements about the purposes of PSE and were asked the extent to which their teaching contributes to those purposes. All faculty were most likely to report that thinking critically and analytically is a purpose of PSE and something they try to develop in their students through their teaching.

There were several significant differences between faculty by institution and level of WIL involvement, and in all instances where significant differences were found, University of Waterloo faculty reported lower average ratings. While a large number of significant differences were found between faculty at the University of Waterloo and faculty at the other participating universities who taught a course with WIL and those who taught in a program with WIL, only two significant differences were found between faculty with no WIL involvement – working independently and developing leadership skills. In both instances, University of Waterloo faculty reported lower average ratings.

Some of the more notable differences include the lower ratings given by faculty who taught a course with WIL at the University of Waterloo to developing students’ understanding of themselves, and understanding of people from other racial and ethnic backgrounds, as purposes of PSE compared to faculty from the other participating universities. University of Waterloo faculty who taught in a program with WIL also gave lower ratings than faculty at the other universities to helping students develop a personal code of ethics and secure relevant work after graduation.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 110

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Not at all; 2=Very little; 3=Somewhat; 4=Very much) Table 102: Faculty Perceptions of the Purposes of PSE by WIL Involvement and Institution Level of WIL Involvement Teach in program with Teach course with WIL WIL No WIL Institution Other Other Other UW universities UW universities UW universities n=118 n=432 n=260 n=312 n=91 n=681 Mean Thinking critically and analytically 3.87a 3.92a 3.89a 3.93a 3.79a 3.87a Applying skills and knowledge in different situations 3.69a 3.76a 3.52a 3.66b 3.47a 3.54a Writing clearly and effectively 3.56a 3.76b 3.41a 3.59b 3.54a 3.60a Solving complex, real-world problems 3.51a 3.63a 3.45a 3.49a 3.15a 3.21a Working independently 3.50a 3.68b 3.61a 3.63a 3.42a 3.61b Becoming lifelong learners 3.48a 3.69b 3.36a 3.50b 3.38a 3.48a Acquiring job-related or work-related knowledge and skills 3.44a 3.55a 3.14a 3.37b 3.03a 3.10a Working effectively with others 3.43a 3.61b 3.04a 3.30b 3.02a 3.12a Using data to analyze problems 3.39a 3.44a 3.40a 3.41a 2.97a 3.07a Speaking clearly and effectively 3.28a 3.61b 3.12a 3.42b 3.29a 3.36a Developing a personal code of ethics and values 3.16b 3.50a 2.82a 3.13b 2.92a 3.04a Securing relevant work after graduation 3.00a 3.26b 2.89a 3.04b 2.60a 2.73a Developing leadership skills 3.00a 3.34b 2.57a 2.86b 2.49a 2.71b Contributing to the welfare of their community 2.99a 3.41b 2.63a 2.87b 2.71a 2.80a Acquiring a broad general education 2.98a 3.20b 3.15a 3.19a 3.33a 3.26a Understanding themselves 2.91a 3.36b 2.60a 2.86b 3.06a 3.02a Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds 2.77a 3.30b 2.19a 2.73b 2.91a 2.79a Using computing and information technology 2.61a 2.91b 2.77a 2.95b 2.41a 2.57a Participating as informed voters in local, provincial and federal elections 1.95b 2.42a 1.83a 1.97a 2.13a 2.12a

Do faculty from the University of Waterloo differ in their opinion about the amount of WIL in PSE? Faculty perceptions about the amount of WIL in PSE differ significantly between the University of Waterloo and the other participating universities. Faculty members at the University of Waterloo were less likely to indicate that the amount of WIL in PSE should be increased and were more likely to indicate that it should be kept the same than faculty at other participating universities. University of Waterloo faculty were also less likely to be unsure as to whether the level of WIL in PSE should change.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 111

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Table 103: Faculty Perceptions of the Amount of WIL in PSE by Institution Institution UW Other universities n=457 n=1389 %

Increased 35.2a 46.6b Decreased 4.8 4.2 Appropriate levels of WIL a a Kept about the same 37.2a 21.0b

Not sure 22.8a 28.2b

Breaking down faculty perceptions by level of WIL involvement reveals that only faculty who taught in a program with WIL differed significantly in their perceptions about the amount of WIL in PSE, with faculty at other participating universities more likely to support an increase. Faculty support for maintaining the amount of WIL in PSE differed significantly by institution and level of WIL involvement. For all levels of WIL involvement, University of Waterloo faculty were consistently more likely to support no change in the amount of WIL in PSE. Interestingly, while significant differences were found between faculty at the University of Waterloo who were unsure about the appropriate amount of WIL in PSE compared to faculty at other participating universities, no significant differences were found when results were broken down by level of WIL involvement.

Table 104: Faculty Perceptions of the Amount of WIL in PSE by WIL Involvement and Institution Level of WIL Involvement Teach in program with Teach course with WIL WIL No WIL Institution Other Other Other UW universities UW universities UW universities n=115 n=421 n=255 n=305 n=85 n=651 %

Increased 52.2a 60.3a 29.0a 46.6b 29.4a 37.9a

Appropriate levels Decreased 0.9a 1.2a 6.7a 4.6a 4.7a 5.7a of WIL Kept about the same 33.0a 23.8b 40.8a 24.6b 32.9a 17.5b

Not sure 13.9a 14.7a 23.5a 24.3a 32.9a 38.9a

Challenges Associated with WIL Graduating Student Survey What types of challenges do students most commonly encounter while participating in WIL? A number of significant differences between the challenges faced by graduating students from the University of Waterloo and graduating students from the other participating universities were found. University of Waterloo students in both co-op and other WIL programs were more likely to indicate that the work assigned was boring and that they were not paid enough. Co-op students from the University of Waterloo were also more likely to report feeling disconnected from co-workers, but were less likely to report not being paid. Students who participated in other WIL programs at the University of Waterloo were more

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 112

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

likely to report not being assigned enough work, not being able to find an appropriate placement, and not receiving enough support from the school during WIL. (1=Did not apply; 2=Minor challenge; 3=Major challenge) Table 105: Graduating Student Challenges Associated with WIL Participation by Institution Type of WIL Co-op Other WIL Institution Other Other UW universities UW universities n=255 n=287 n=89 n=1881 Mean Work assigned was boring 1.85a 1.69b 1.61a 1.44b Not enough work assigned in the workplace 1.82a 1.70a 1.53a 1.37b The theory and skills I learned at school were not relevant to the workplace 1.81a 1.73a 1.65a 1.53a Not enough opportunities to share what I learned when I went back to the classroom 1.77a 1.63b 1.61a 1.50a Couldn’t find an appropriate placement for my field of study 1.74a 1.67a 1.79a 1.41b Not enough preparation from my school before the WIL 1.71a 1.60a 1.72a 1.62a Didn’t get paid enough 1.62a 1.50b 1.63a 1.44b Feeling of disconnection from co-workers 1.57a 1.45b 1.51a 1.47a Not enough support from my school during the WIL 1.51a 1.52a 1.65a 1.48b Too many additional demands on my time 1.47a 1.38a 1.56a 1.68a Too much work assigned in the workplace 1.46a 1.39a 1.47a 1.43a Disorganized work environment 1.45a 1.46a 1.41a 1.42a Unexpected financial costs 1.44a 1.47a 1.63a 1.57a Not enough supervision in the workplace 1.42a 1.40a 1.39a 1.34a Hard to balance work-integrated learning with my family commitments 1.38a 1.39a 1.51a 1.61a Didn’t learn anything during the work placement 1.28a 1.25a 1.33a 1.23a Didn’t get paid at all 1.18a 1.29b 1.72a 1.80a

Faculty Survey Were the challenges faced by University of Waterloo faculty when implementing WIL similar to those faced by faculty at other universities? There were several significant differences in the challenges faced by faculty according to both institution and level of WIL involvement, with the majority of significant differences found for faculty who taught in a program with a WIL component. In all instances where significant differences were found, it was University of Waterloo faculty who were less likely to report facing challenges.

University of Waterloo faculty who taught both courses and programs with WIL were less likely to report facing challenges associated with a lack of financial and administrative resources for faculty and a lack of institutional service recognition for WIL activities.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 113

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

Table 106: Faculty Challenges Associated with WIL by WIL Involvement and Institution Level of WIL Involvement Teach course with WIL Teach in program with WIL Other Other UW universities UW universities Institution % n % n % n % n

Ensuring quality placements for students 77.8a 91 71.5a 304 66.4a 170 75.2b 231

Finding enough placements for students 60.7a 71 67.3a 286 57.4a 147 70.7b 217

Balancing WIL with academic workloads 43.6a 51 56.9b 242 46.9a 120 51.5a 158

Managing WIL with large class sizes 64.1a 75 64.9a 276 38.3a 98 58.6b 180

Developing appropriate WIL curriculum 35.0a 41 41.2%a 175 36.7a 94 46.9b 144 Integrating the work experience with classroom learning 33.3a 39 38.4%a 163 37.9a 97 37.1a 114 Managing employer expectations/communication 38.5a 45 42.4%a 180 33.2a 85 39.7a 122 Managing student expectations/communication 38.5a 45 36.7%a 156 32.4a 83 37.5a 115 Lack of financial and administrative resources for faculty 43.6a 51 55.5b 236 23.0a 59 47.2b 145 Developing valid student assessment and evaluation tools 34.2%a 40 35.1a 149 25.8a 66 36.2b 111 Providing adequate institutional supports for students 40.2%a 47 46.8a 199 24.2a 62 38.4b 118 Making WIL programs accessible to all students 22.2%a 26 28.7a 122 16.8a 43 34.9b 107 Lack of salary recognition for faculty who participate in WIL 24.8%a 29 33.2a 141 12.1a 31 27.0b 83 Lack of recognition for WIL activities in promotion decisions 28.2%a 33 29.2a 124 9.4a 24 24.4b 75

Lack of faculty PD on implementing WIL 22.2%a 26 22.1a 94 11.3a 29 21.2b 65

Lack of institutional culture supporting WIL 17.1a 20 32.2b 137 10.9a 28 26.4b 81 Lack of institutional service recognition for WIL activities 18.8a 22 32.5b 138 7.8a 20 22.5b 69

Benefits of WIL Graduating Student Survey What types of benefits do students receive from participating in WIL? There were no significant differences in the benefits associated with other WIL participation when University of Waterloo graduating students were compared to graduating students from other participating universities. However, co-op students from the University of Waterloo were significantly more likely than co-op students from other participating universities to agree that they academically and professionally benefited from participating in WIL.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 114

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 107: Graduating Student Benefits from WIL Participation by Institution Type of WIL Co-op Other WIL Institution UW Other universities UW Other universities n=255 n=287 n=89 n=1881 Mean Academic benefits 4.28a 4.14b 3.72a 3.84a Career benefits 4.04a 3.79b 3.49a 3.45a Personal benefits 3.19a 3.33a 3.35a 3.39a

Do WIL students graduate with less debt than non-WIL students across institutions? Student debt patterns were similar at the University of Waterloo and at other participating universities for co- op students and other WIL students, but significant differences were found between non-WIL students. Students at the University of Waterloo who did not participate in WIL were more likely than students from other universities to expect to graduate with debt that must be repaid upon graduation.

Table 108: Graduating Student Debt by WIL Participation and Institution Type of WIL Co-op Other WIL No WIL Institution Other Other Other UW universities UW universities UW universities n=250 n=282 n=86 n=1837 n=153 n=2794 %

Expect to owe any debt that Yes 54.1a 47.1a 53.8a 61.3a 65.0a 55.1b must be repaid No 45.9a 52.9a 46.2a 38.7a 35.0a 44.9b

Graduating students from the University of Waterloo who have no WIL experience and those who participated in a co-op program report lower median debt levels than their counterparts in other universities, while other WIL students from the University of Waterloo report higher median debt levels than those from other participating universities.

Figure 6: Total Median Debt upon Graduation

UW Other Universities

$29,000 $25,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000

$15,000

Co-op Other WIL No WIL

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 115

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

What impact did WIL have on graduating students’ perceptions of their PSE experience, specifically with regard to employability skills, learning outcomes, personal growth, civic responsibility, and self-efficacy? There were no significant differences between other WIL students by institution, but significant differences were found between graduating co-op students and graduating students without WIL experience. University of Waterloo graduating students tended to have better perceptions of the quality of their education in developing their employability skills. For example, graduating co-op and non-WIL students from the University of Waterloo had better perceptions of their numeracy and data skills than graduating students from other participating institutions. Graduating co-op students also had better perceptions of their information management and computer literacy skills than their counterparts at other universities. University of Waterloo non-WIL graduating students had better perceptions of their ability to adapt to different situations and become lifelong learners. However, University of Waterloo co-op students’ perceptions of their communication and presentation skills were lower than co-op students from other participating universities.

Only co-op students had significantly different perceptions of their learning outcomes when results were analyzed by institution. In all instances where significant differences were found, University of Waterloo co- op students had lower perceptions of the quality of their education in fostering broad PSE learning outcomes, including understanding people from different races and cultures, understanding local, national, and global issues, moral and ethical development, and appreciation of arts and culture.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 116

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Poor; 2=Fair; 3=Average; 4=Good; 5=Excellent) Table 109: Graduating Student Perceptions of the Development of Employability Skills and Learning Outcomes by WIL Participation and Institution Type of WIL Co-op Other WIL No WIL Institution Other Other Other UW universities UW universities UW universities n=255 n=287 n=89 n=1887 n=161 n=2888 Mean Communication and presentation skills 3.68a 3.88b 4.02a 3.97a 3.58a 3.74a Information management and computer literacy skills 4.02a 3.73b 3.73a 3.62a 3.60a 3.45a

Numeracy and data skills 4.04a 3.65b 3.53a 3.31a 3.33a 3.14b Thinking and problem solving skills 4.30a 4.17a 4.14a 4.15a 4.15a 4.03a Self-confidence and positive attitude 3.74a 3.80a 3.98a 3.99a 3.87a 3.76a Employability Personal and social skills responsibility 3.62a 3.79a 4.07a 4.09a 3.99a 3.92a Ability to adapt to different situations 4.12a 4.08a 4.13a 4.18a 4.15a 3.97b

Becoming a lifelong learner 3.92a 3.98a 4.20a 4.22a 4.16a 3.99b Knowledge of workplace safety 3.30a 3.32a 3.44a 3.31a 2.94a 2.85a

Ability to work with others 4.09a 4.08a 4.04a 4.12a 3.81a 3.87a Participating in and managing tasks and projects 4.10a 4.18a 4.07a 4.14a 4.06a 3.97a Critical thinking and self- reflection 3.98a 4.07a 4.07a 4.20a 4.12a 4.06a Knowledge of your particular field of study 4.22a 4.21a 4.26a 4.24a 4.11a 4.05a Understanding of people from different races and cultures 3.49a 3.70b 4.02a 3.90a 3.87a 3.80a Understanding of local Learning issues or community outcomes problems 2.89a 3.29b 3.63a 3.61a 3.44a 3.37a Understanding of national issues 2.83a 3.29b 3.45a 3.47a 3.41a 3.41a Understanding of global issues 2.90a 3.35b 3.45a 3.52a 3.45a 3.49a Moral and ethical development 3.20a 3.63b 3.82a 3.79a 3.74a 3.66a Appreciation of arts and culture 2.58a 3.07b 3.16a 3.23a 3.32a 3.30a

Very few significant differences were found between graduating students’ perceptions of the quality of their education in developing their personal growth, civic responsibility, and self-efficacy by institution. There

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 117

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

were no significant differences between any graduating students’ perceptions on measures of personal growth, with all aspects of personal growth falling between neutral perceptions (neither agree nor disagree) and agreement.

University of Waterloo co-op students were less likely to agree with statements addressing aspects of civic responsibility, including that it is the responsibility of the whole community to take care of people who need help and feeling that they can make a difference in the world.

Significant differences were also found for measures of self-efficacy, and in all instances University of Waterloo graduating students reported lower levels of agreement than graduating students from other participating universities. Graduating co-op students from the University of Waterloo were less likely to agree that they are able to do most tasks very well compared to other people. University of Waterloo graduating students who participated in other types of WIL had lower levels of agreement about performing job-related tasks, performing many different tasks effectively, and the ability to complete most tasks very well compared to others. University of Waterloo graduating students who did not participate in WIL were significantly less confident than their peers at other universities about their ability to find an interesting job. (1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 110: Graduating Student Perceptions of the Development Personal Growth, Civic Responsibility, and Self-efficacy by WIL Participation and Institution Type of WIL Co-op Other WIL No WIL Institution Other Other Other UW universities UW universities UW universities n=255 n=287 n=89 n=1887 n=161 n=2888 Mean As a result of my PSE, I have changed the way I used to do things 3.94a 3.84a 3.86a 3.83a 3.88a 3.79a As a result of my PSE, I have changed the way I look at Personal myself 3.89 3.94 4.06 3.95 4.01 3.88 growth a a a a a a During my PSE, I discovered faults in what I had previously believed to be right 3.61a 3.60a 3.74a 3.62a 3.70a 3.62a My PSE has challenged some of my firmly held beliefs 3.29a 3.37a 3.55a 3.50a 3.50a 3.41a It is important to help others even if you do not get paid for it 4.10a 4.17a 4.21a 4.32a 4.32a 4.22a Individuals have a responsibility to help solve our Civic social problems 3.94 3.98 4.13 4.09 4.11 3.99 responsibility a a a a a a It is the responsibility of the whole community to take care of people who need help 3.80a 3.95b 4.16a 4.13a 4.07a 3.95a I feel that I can make a difference in the world 3.77a 3.95b 4.19a 4.20a 4.03a 3.94a I have confidence that I will be Self-efficacy able to perform job-related 4.34a 4.36a 4.15a 4.39b 4.19a 4.25a

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 118

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

tasks assigned to me I believe that I can obtain outcomes that are important to me 4.26a 4.29a 4.27a 4.32a 4.19a 4.18a I am confident that I can perform many different tasks effectively 4.26a 4.34a 4.19a 4.36b 4.23a 4.21a I am able to successfully overcome many challenges 4.25a 4.30a 4.18a 4.32a 4.13a 4.17a I feel certain that I will accomplish difficult tasks when faced with them 4.21a 4.24a 4.20a 4.30a 4.14a 4.17a I have confidence in my ability to communicate in an effective manner 4.16a 4.13a 4.17a 4.27a 4.10a 4.13a I believe that I can succeed at almost anything to which I set my mind 4.14a 4.22a 4.17a 4.25a 4.01a 4.10a I am able to perform quite well even when things are tough 4.14a 4.23a 4.05a 4.22b 4.01a 4.08a I am confident that I will be able to progress through the ranks in my place of employment 4.08a 4.04a 3.91a 4.07a 3.78a 3.91a How satisfied would you say you are with overall postsecondary experience 4.08a 3.97a 4.04a 4.00a 3.86a 3.78a I am able to do most tasks very well compared to other people 4.06a 4.22b 4.02a 4.11a 3.93a 3.99a I believe that I will achieve most of the career goals that I have set for myself 4.03a 4.01a 4.06a 4.19a 3.85a 3.92a I am confident about finding a job that interests me 3.92a 3.93a 3.92a 3.99a 3.55a 3.74b

Graduating student respondents were asked about their level of satisfaction with their WIL experiences. Co- op students at the University of Waterloo were significantly more satisfied with their co-op experiences than co-op students from other participating universities, while graduating students from the University of Waterloo who participated in field placements and service-learning were less satisfied with their experiences than graduating students from other participating universities.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 119

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Very dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 4= Satisfied; 5=Very satisfied) Table 111: Graduating Students Overall Satisfaction with WIL by Institution Institution Other UW universities

Mean n Mean n Thinking about your overall practicum or clinical placement experience, how satisfied would you say you are 4.33a 24 4.19a 809 Thinking about your overall co-op experience, how satisfied would you say you are 4.23a 255 3.87b 287 Thinking about your overall internship experience, how satisfied would you say you are 4.05a 40 4.16a 509 Thinking about your overall applied research project experience, how satisfied would you say you are 3.99a 29 4.03a 345 Thinking about your overall field placement experience, how satisfied would you say you are 3.65a 31 4.11b 417 Thinking about your overall service-learning experience, how satisfied would you say you are 3.57a 21 4.08b 327

Faculty Survey Do faculty perceptions of the student benefits associated with participating in WIL vary between the University of Waterloo and other universities, and by level of WIL involvement? There were a handful of significant differences between faculty perceptions of student benefits associated with participating in WIL when University of Waterloo results were compared to other institutions. Faculty from the University of Waterloo were more likely to agree that WIL helps students develop contacts and networks for future employment, that WIL helps students better understand work realities and expectations, and that students who participate in WIL are more employable than other students. Faculty from the other participating universities were more likely to agree that the costs associated with WIL outweigh the benefits, and that WIL is only useful for students who go directly to the labour market after completing PSE. However, faculty from all universities tended to disagree with these statements, that is, the mean scores fall between the categories ‘disagree’ and ‘neutral.’

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 120

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 112: Faculty Perceptions of Student Benefits Associated with WIL by Institution Institution University of All other Waterloo universities n=472 n=1445 Mean

WIL helps students develop contacts and networks for future employment 4.26a 4.10b

WIL helps students better understand work realities and expectations 4.25a 4.15b

Participating in WIL increases students’ self-confidence 4.12a 4.08a

WIL enhances the postsecondary experience for students 4.11a 4.05a WIL lets students explore their career interests and clarify their career goals 4.10a 4.03a

WIL lets students apply the theory and skills learned in the classroom 4.03a 4.09a

Students who participate in WIL are more employable than other students 4.02a 3.80b WIL engages students in thinking critically about the workplace and the nature of work 3.93a 3.92a Participation in WIL increases students’ engagement in their academic studies 3.76a 3.82a

WIL is particularly valuable for students considered “at risk" 3.15a 3.20a

There is a lack of evidence about the impact of WIL on student learning 2.88a 2.89a

Too many employers use WIL simply to reduce their salary costs 2.88a 2.95a

Employers, not students, are the main beneficiaries of WIL programs 2.46a 2.51a The costs to students (both financial and time required) outweigh the benefits of WIL 2.34a 2.57b WIL does little to improve students’ understanding of academic course content 2.26a 2.29a WIL is only useful for students who go directly to the labour market after their PSE 2.25a 2.41b

Significant differences in average levels of agreement about the student benefits associated with WIL were found between University of Waterloo faculty and faculty from different institutions by level of WIL involvement. University of Waterloo faculty who taught a course with WIL were more likely to agree that WIL helps students develop contacts and networks for future employment and that WIL lets students explore their career interests and clarify their career goals. When significant differences were found between faculty who taught in a program with WIL, agreement was consistently lower among faculty from the University of Waterloo compared to faculty from other participating universities. For example, University of Waterloo faculty were less likely to agree that participating in WIL increases students’ self-confidence, that WIL enhances the postsecondary experience for students, that WIL lets students apply the theory and skills learned in the classroom, that WIL engages students in thinking critically about the workplace and the nature of work, that participation in WIL increases students’ engagement in their academic studies, and that WIL is only useful for students who go directly to the labour market after their PSE. Only one significant difference was found between faculty from different institutions who had no WIL experience, with University of Waterloo faculty more likely to agree that WIL engages students in thinking critically about the workplace and the nature of work.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 121

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 113: Faculty Perceptions of Student Benefits Associated with WIL by WIL Involvement and Institution Level of WIL Involvement Teach course with Teach in program with WIL WIL No WIL Institution Other Other Other UW universities UW universities UW universities n=118 n=432 n=260 n=312 n=91 n=681 Mean WIL helps students develop contacts and networks for future employment 4.51a 4.25b 4.21a 4.19a 4.08a 3.97a WIL helps students better understand work realities and expectations 4.49a 4.37a 4.18a 4.20a 4.13a 3.98a Participating in WIL increases students’ self-confidence 4.54a 4.45a 3.99a 4.11b 3.92a 3.83a WIL enhances the postsecondary experience for students 4.53a 4.41a 3.99a 4.13b 3.91a 3.78a WIL lets students explore their career interests and clarify their career goals 4.41a 4.26b 4.03a 4.06a 3.88a 3.88a WIL lets students apply the theory and skills learned in the classroom 4.42a 4.43a 3.91a 4.08b 3.88a 3.88a Students who participate in WIL are more employable than other students 4.27a 4.10a 4.00a 3.93a 3.73a 3.54a WIL engages students in thinking critically about the workplace and the nature of work 4.28a 4.27a 3.77a 3.97b 3.95a 3.68b Participation in WIL increases students’ engagement in their academic studies 4.10a 4.11a 3.64a 3.86b 3.64a 3.61a WIL is particularly valuable for students considered “at risk" 3.17a 3.28a 3.10a 3.17a 3.26a 3.17a There is a lack of evidence about the impact of WIL on student learning 2.69a 2.52a 2.91a 2.91a 3.11a 3.09a Too many employers use work-integrated learning simply to reduce their salary costs 2.69a 2.51a 2.86a 2.98a 3.20a 3.21a Employers, not students, are the main beneficiaries of WIL programs 2.22a 2.14a 2.48a 2.54a 2.73a 2.72a The costs to students (both financial and time required) outweigh the benefits of WIL 2.19a 2.31a 2.29a 2.45a 2.69a 2.78a WIL does little to improve students’ understanding of academic course content 1.82a 1.89a 2.40a 2.30a 2.48a 2.54a WIL is only useful for students who go directly to the labour market after their PSE 1.95a 2.08a 2.24a 2.50b 2.70a 2.57a

Faculty from the University of Waterloo differed significantly in some of their perceptions of the faculty and institutional benefits associated with WIL when compared to faculty from other participating universities. University of Waterloo faculty were more likely to agree that WIL strengthens links between the institution and the business community, that WIL is an effective PSE recruitment and marketing tool, and that WIL can help businesses find solutions to specific business or industry needs. University of Waterloo faculty were also more likely to personally view WIL as valuable and to agree that their institution provides the resources and supports needed for faculty to participate in WIL. Faculty from the other participating universities were, however, more likely to agree that WIL can engage postsecondary institutions in responding to community needs.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 122

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 114: Faculty Perceptions of Faculty and Institutional Benefits Associated with WIL by Institution Institution University of All other Waterloo universities n=472 n=1445 Mean

I personally think that WIL is valuable 4.24a 4.10b

WIL strengthens links between the institution and the business community 4.11a 3.90b

WIL is an effective PSE recruitment and marketing tool 3.99a 3.78b

WIL connects postsecondary institutions to the broader community 3.92a 3.95a

WIL enhances institutional reputation 3.91a 3.56b Feedback from students and employers who participate in WIL can improve academic programming 3.75a 3.77a WIL can engage postsecondary institutions in responding to identified community needs 3.66a 3.77b

WIL can help businesses find solutions to specific business or industry needs 3.60a 3.47b

Involvement with WIL helps faculty keep their knowledge current 3.52a 3.54a

WIL can involve postsecondary institutions in addressing global issues 3.49a 3.45a My institution provides resources and supports for faculty to participate in WIL activities 3.40a 3.09b

WIL perpetuates a business model for PSE 3.27a 3.22a WIL diverts funding away from program areas that may not lend themselves to WIL 3.16a 3.06a By extending corporate involvement in curriculum, WIL has a negative overall impact on PSE 2.78a 2.81a

WIL is inconsistent with the values of a liberal education 2.43a 2.50a

The levels of agreement about the faculty and institutional benefits associated with WIL participation differed significantly by institution and level of WIL involvement. In most instances, University of Waterloo faculty had higher levels of agreement with the statements presented, with three exceptions. University of Waterloo faculty who taught in a program with WIL were less likely to agree that WIL connects postsecondary institutions to the broader community, that feedback from students and employers who participate in WIL can improve academic programming, and that WIL can engage postsecondary institutions in responding to identified community needs.

Consistent with these broad findings, all University of Waterloo faculty were on average more likely than faculty from other participating universities to agree that WIL enhances institutional reputation and that their institution provides the resources and supports needed for faulty to participate in WIL activities.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 123

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree) Table 115: Faculty Perceptions of Faculty and Institutional Benefits Associated with WIL by WIL Involvement and Institution Level of WIL Involvement Teach course with Teach in program with WIL WIL No WIL Institution Other Other Other UW universities UW universities UW universities n=118 n=432 n=260 n=312 n=91 n=681 Mean I personally think that WIL is valuable 4.65a 4.52b 4.13a 4.11a 4.05a 3.84b WIL strengthens links between the institution and the business community 4.34a 4.01b 4.06a 3.93b 3.95a 3.81a WIL is an effective PSE recruitment and marketing tool 4.22a 3.95b 3.96a 3.84b 3.73a 3.64a WIL connects postsecondary institutions to the broader community 4.32a 4.25a 3.77a 3.97b 3.83a 3.75a WIL enhances institutional reputation 4.26a 3.85b 3.85a 3.63b 3.64a 3.34b Feedback from students and employers who participate in WIL can improve academic programming 4.18a 4.10a 3.59a 3.78b 3.65a 3.57a WIL can engage postsecondary institutions in responding to identified community needs 4.10a 4.11a 3.46a 3.76b 3.66a 3.57a WIL can help businesses find solutions to specific business or industry needs 3.86a 3.69a 3.53a 3.52a 3.43a 3.31a Involvement with WIL helps faculty keep their knowledge current 4.08a 4.00a 3.28a 3.41a 3.48a 3.30a WIL can involve postsecondary institutions in addressing global issues 3.90a 3.81a 3.31a 3.43a 3.49a 3.24b My institution provides resources and supports for faculty to participate in WIL activities 3.56a 3.23b 3.38a 3.12b 3.21a 2.97b WIL perpetuates a business model for PSE 3.22a 3.01b 3.29a 3.25a 3.27a 3.33a WIL diverts funding away from program areas that may not lend themselves to WIL 2.96a 2.68b 3.21a 3.07a 3.29a 3.31a By extending corporate involvement in curriculum, WIL has a negative overall impact on PSE 2.36a 2.53a 2.88a 2.75a 3.04a 3.02a WIL is inconsistent with the values of a liberal education 2.21a 2.24a 2.43a 2.43a 2.75a 2.70a

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 124

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

8 – Summary of Findings

This report provides an overview of WIL at the University of Waterloo from three different perspectives: that of graduating students, faculty, and employers. Areas of particular interest included who participates in WIL, what challenges are associated with WIL participation, and how WIL benefits both students and institutions. In addition, comparisons between University of Waterloo respondents and those from other participating universities were presented. A summary of the key findings follows.

Participation in WIL

Almost one-half of all graduating students included in this report participated in a co-op program, and over one-half of graduating students completed a program with a WIL component. There seems to be no clear or overarching reason why students chose not to participate in WIL. Over one-half of graduating students said they would choose a program with a WIL component if given the option to start over again, and most would do so for reasons related to obtaining employment after graduation.

Among faculty, the demographic breakdown of those who taught a course with a WIL component reveals that there were greater proportions of older and male faculty who taught WIL courses, and that full-time faculty were most likely to be involved with WIL. Significant differences in the degree to which faculty integrate student learning with real-world work experiences were found by program group and non- academic work experience. Faculty workloads do not seem to be extensively affected by teaching a course with WIL, and few substantial differences were found when focusing on different socio-demographic characteristics. Faculty, through their teaching, were shown to place a great deal of importance on students thinking critically and analytically. There were several differences between faculty in their perceptions of the purposes of PSE and how their teaching fosters those purposes when broken down by socio-demographic characteristics. Not surprisingly, faculty with WIL experience were more likely to think that the amount of WIL in PSE should be increased.

Among the employers surveyed, meanwhile, few had provided co-op in the last two years (2010-2012) and most who stopped offering or do not currently offer WIL did so mainly because of a lack of suitable work for students. Other notable reasons include professional, regulatory, and staffing issues, the staff time needed to recruit, train, and supervise students, financial concerns, and a lack of students with the skills required. Employers stated that their participation in WIL could be better facilitated by providing financial incentives and scheduling student placements to meet business cycle needs.

Challenges Associated with WIL

Graduating students experienced relatively few challenges during their participation in WIL, with most challenges considered to be minor. Graduating student challenges varied by type of WIL. The highest rated challenges for co-op students were the lack of relevance between the skills learned at school and workplace assignments, and not feeling challenged in the workplace. Other WIL students reported that they felt underprepared for their placements, that they were not able to find suitable placements, and that they were not paid for the work they did.

Among the college and university faculty surveyed, the most prominent challenges included ensuring the quality and quantity of placements for students. Faculty who taught a course with WIL were more likely than those who taught in a program with WIL and those with no WIL involvement to indicate that managing WIL with large class sizes and ensuring quality placements for students were challenges. Where significant

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 125

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

differences were found by program group, it was faculty from Applied Health Science, Arts, and Environment who were more likely to report challenges.

Most employers claimed that they did not experience any challenges associated with WIL, and this was especially true for co-op employers. The most commonly cited challenges were students’ soft and technical skills not meeting expectations, and the staff time needed to hire WIL students. Significant differences in the types of challenges based on company size were only found among other WIL employers. For example, other WIL employers with less than ten employees as well as those with 20-49 employees were more likely to report staffing issues and lack of university support as challenges.

Benefits of WIL

Student benefits associated with WIL can be grouped into three overarching categories: professional, personal, and academic. The degree to which WIL students felt they benefited in these ways varied by type of WIL. Co-op students had significantly better perceptions of the professional and personal benefits gained from their WIL participation. Co-op students also reported the lowest amount of median debt upon graduation, while students involved in other WIL reported the highest. The analyses also revealed that, when compared to students who participated in other types of WIL as well as those who did not have any WIL experiences, co-op students had the highest level of overall satisfaction with their postsecondary experience. When asked about the extent to which the University of Waterloo helped to develop employability skills, learning outcomes, personal growth, civic responsibility, and self-efficacy, students tended to have the highest perceptions of the development of their employability skills and their self- efficacy. These findings were especially true for co-op students.

Faculty respondents perceived WIL as helping students to develop contacts and networks for future employment and allowing them to better understand work realities and expectations. Faculty who taught a course with WIL tended to give higher average ratings to student benefits associated with WIL participation than other faculty. When asked about institutional benefits associated with WIL, faculty tended to personally think that WIL is valuable and that it strengthens the links between the institution and the business community. Overall, faculty had better perceptions of the student benefits associated with WIL participation than the institutional benefits associated with WIL.

The most common reasons cited by employers for providing WIL placements to postsecondary students were the opportunity to prescreen potential hires, to develop industry/profession workforce skills, and to bring in specific skills and talent. While the proportion of students hired after graduation varies, co-op employers were more likely than other WIL employers to report hiring WIL students who had done placements in their workplace following the students’ graduation from university.

The University of Waterloo Relative to Other Participating Universities

Graduating Students There was a significantly larger proportion of graduating students participating in co-op at the University of Waterloo than at the other participating universities, while other institutions had a significantly larger proportion of other WIL students. A larger proportion of University of Waterloo graduating students who did not participate in WIL did have the option to do so.

University of Waterloo graduating students who participated in WIL were more likely to report having boring work assignments and not being paid enough, but co-op graduating students were more likely to report

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 126

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

benefiting academically and professionally from participating in WIL. Co-op and non-WIL students expected to graduate with lower median debt levels than their counterparts at other participating universities.

University of Waterloo graduating students tended to have better perceptions of the quality of their education in developing their employability skills, but lower perceptions of its impact on self-efficacy. Co-op students from the University of Waterloo were also less likely than those at other participating universities to agree with statements about the quality of PSE in achieving broad learning outcomes and civic responsibility. However, graduating co-op students from the University of Waterloo were more satisfied with their WIL experience than graduating co-op students from other participating universities.

Faculty University of Waterloo faculty were more likely to have taught in a program with a WIL component, were less likely to support an increase in the amount of WIL in PSE, and tended to report less impact on their workloads resulting from WIL than faculty at other participating universities. Faculty at the University of Waterloo were also less likely to report facing challenges when implementing WIL. This was especially the case for faculty who taught in a program with a WIL component.

Faculty from the University of Waterloo were more likely to agree that WIL helps students develop contacts and networks for future employment, that WIL helps students better understand work realities and expectations, and that students who participate in WIL are more employable than other students. When asked about the institutional benefits associated with WIL, University of Waterloo faculty were more likely to agree that WIL strengthens links between the institution and the business community, that WIL is an effective PSE recruitment and marketing tool, and that WIL can help businesses find solutions to specific business or industry needs. University of Waterloo faculty were also more likely to personally think that WIL is valuable and to agree that their institution provides the resources and supports needed for faculty to participate in WIL.

Students seeking to gain practical, real-world work experience while completing a university degree will be well-served by participating in one of the many undergraduate programs with a co-op option or by participating in other types of WIL offered at the University of Waterloo. While top student challenges – not enough work assigned and that the work assigned was boring – amount to less than ‘minor’ challenges, these may be areas of improvement for WIL at the University of Waterloo, especially given that the same types of concerns were also reported by faculty. With that said, faculty tend to be supportive of WIL participation and many personally view WIL as valuable. They recognize that students, faculty, and the University of Waterloo all stand to benefit from participating in and providing WIL. Employers too have shown that WIL provides them with opportunities to give back to the community, in addition to being a means of prescreening potential hires. Given the results presented in this report, WIL is shown to be a worthwhile endeavor for students, faculty, and employers.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 127

The University of Waterloo and Work-Integrated Learning: Three Perspectives

References

Billett, S. (2009). Developing agentic professionals through practice-based pedagogies. New South Wales: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

National Commission for Cooperative Education. (1995). Practitioners Committee on Model Identification in Cooperative Education, National Commission for Cooperative Education, March.

Sattler, P., and Peters, J. (2012). Work-Integrated Learning and Postsecondary Graduates: The Perspective of Ontario Employers. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 128